INSPECCION EN SERVICIO DE RECIPIENTES Y SISTEMAS DE TUBERIAS.

TEMARIO 1 CONCEPTOS Y OBJETIVOS DE LOS PROGRAMAS DE INSPECCION Tema 7 de api 572 pag 3

2 DESCRIPCION DE LOS PRINCIPALES MECANISMOS DE DAO EXISTENTES EN LAS PLANTAS 4 Tema 8 api 572 3 REQUISITOS DE DISEO Y DOCUMENTACION DE LA PLANTA EN RELACION A LA INSPECCION Tema 2.3 api 579 11

4 CONCEPTOS PRINCIPALES SOBRE LAS NORMAS APLICABLES EN LA INSPECCION (API 510,570.580,581,579.ASME SECC. XI) 14 Introduccin 5 ALCANCE Y PLANES DE INSPECCION EN SERVICIO Alcance de cada uno 6 ENSAYOS NO DESTRUCTIVOS Asme sec V alcance y descripcin de cada mtodo 17 23

7 LINEAMIENTOS PARA EVALUAR LA INTEGRIDAD ESTRUCTURAL Y VIDA REMANENTE DE EQUIPOS E INSTALACIONES 36 Tema 6 de DCSSI-SI-006 8 BASE DE DATOS PARA LAS INSPECCIONES EN SERVICIO Tema 4.3 api 579 o 9 CONCEPTOS Y DESCRIPCION DE LOS REGISTROS DE CALIDAD RELACIONADOS CON LA INSPECCION EN SERVICIO Tema 6.7 y anex C y D de api 510 54

58

1 CONCEPTOS Y OBJETIVOS DE LOS PROGRAMAS DE INSPECCION

Tema 7 de api 572 Razones para la inspeccin Las razones bsicas para la inspeccin son determinar la condicin fsica del recipiente o sistema de tuberas, y determinar el tipo, velocidad y causa de la degradacin. Esta informacin ser cuidadosamente documentada despus de cada inspeccin. Con tales datos, la seguridad puede ser mantenida, el periodo de operacin sin un paro, puede ser extendido, la velocidad de degradacin puede ser algunas veces reducida y requerimientos de reparaciones futuras o reemplazos pueden ser estimadas. Inspecciones peridicas programadas pueden revelar condiciones que resultaran en una emergencia o programa de paro, una fuga o cualquier falla de recipiente si no es corregido. La inspeccin peridica puede favorecer a un programa de mantenimiento bien planeado. Las velocidades de corrosin y tolerancias de corrosin remanente determinada por la inspeccin son las bases normales para predecir las necesidades de reemplazo o reparacin. Estas predicciones provistas para un mantenimiento planeado y una continuidad de operacin y ayuda a asegurar una planta segura y viable. Inspecciones externas ejecutadas mientras el equipo esta en operacin usando instrumentos acsticos, ultrasnicos o radiogrficos u otras tcnicas no destructivas pueden revelar importante informacin sin requerir entrar al equipo. Defectos tales como fugas, fracturas, mala instalacin de partes, lneas tapadas, vibracin inducida, ruido inusual, y otra evidencia de malfuncionamiento puede ser encontrada. Si estos sntomas son apropiadamente analizados y correcciones son tomadas, la viabilidad de las operaciones mejorar.

2 DESCRIPCION DE LOS PRINCIPALES MECANISMOS DE DAO EXISTENTES EN LAS PLANTAS

La degradacin es posible sobre todas las superficies del recipiente en contacto con cualquiera de un amplio rango de compuestos orgnicos e inorgnicos, con agua contaminada o limpia, con vapores o con la atmsfera. La forma de degradacin puede ser electro-qumica, qumica, mecnica o una combinacin de las tres. La degradacin puede ser acelerada por la temperatura, esfuerzos, vibracin, golpeteo, y alta velocidad o irregularidad del fluido. La corrosin es la primer causa de degradacin en un recipiente a presin y puede ocurrir en cualquier parte del recipiente. La severidad de la degradacin es influenciada por la resistencia a lo corrosin de los materiales usados en su construccin. Muchos de los contaminantes in el crudo y qumicos manejados en las unidades de proceso, reaccionan con los metales de tal forma que causa corrosin. Algunos flujos del proceso pueden causar erosin. En algunos procesos ocurran ambas, erosin y corrosin. Cuando esto ocurre la prdida de espesor del metal sobrepasan grandemente las prdidas de metal estimadas en efectos considerados por separado, la erosin y la corrosin. En general las prdidas de metal toman lugar en un periodo de tiempo. Registros adecuados de tales prdidas son muy importantes porque de ellos se desprenden los programas de inspeccin a intervalos regulares y la vida del equipo esperada. Sin embargo la prdida de metal, no siempre es constante, pero est en funcin de las variables como; sales, sulfuros, qumicos, custicos, cidos orgnicos, agua (especialmente con pH bajo), depsitos o ataques granulares de qumicos usados en refinacin y temperaturas de operacin. Es esencial entonces que los inspectores estn generalmente enterados de la operacin da con da del equipo y que l vigile las velocidades de corrosin a intervalos frecuentes. 2.1 DIFERENTES CLASIFICACIONES DEL FENMENO DE CORROSIN La corrosin ocurre en muchas y muy variadas formas, pero su clasificacin se basa principalmente en alguno de los siguientes factores: Naturaleza del Medio Corrosivo Mecanismo de Corrosin Apariencia del Metal Corrodo A continuacin se detalla con mas precisin cada una de las clasificaciones. 2.2 Clasificacin de la corrosin, por la naturaleza del medio corrosivo. Esta clasificacin, aunque no es muy usual, es muy til, ya que pueden generalizarse tcnicas de control para medios corrosivos similares. En esta clasificacin, se dividen los medios corrosivos en dos grandes grupos, los que, a su vez, se subdividen en subgrupos: Medios Hmedos o electrolticos Medios Secos (Altas Temperaturas) Del primer grupo podemos tener los siguientes:

Medios Hmedos

Agua de desecho industrial Agua de mar Agua potable Agua para sistemas de enfriamiento Hidrocarburos no refinados Hidrocarburos refinados Medios amargos (cido Sulfhdrico) Medios dulces (cido Carbnico) cidos orgnicos e Inorgnicos Soluciones alcalinas Soluciones oxidantes Oxgeno atmosfrico Contaminantes atmosfricos, etc.

Del segundo grupo dadas sus caractersticas, en trminos prcticos, el agente corrosivo ms comn es el oxgeno, aunque existen otros compuestos tales como el Bixido de Azufre, Cloro, etc., estables a temperaturas elevadas. 2.3 Clasificacin de la corrosin de acuerdo a su mecanismo. Esta clasificacin tambin es muy til en el estudio de fenmenos de corrosin y su control, ya que conociendo el mecanismo de corrosin, se pueden desarrollar tcnicas apropiadas para la prevencin y control de la misma. En esta clasificacin, dividimos a la Corrosin en dos grandes grupos: Corrosin Qumica Corrosin Corrosin Electroqumica 2.4 Clasificacin de la Corrosin segn la apariencia del metal corrodo. Esta Clasificacin es la ms empleada por la literatura tcnica, referente al tema, y se basa en la inspeccin visual de la superficie metlica del espcimen metlico corrodo, encontrando dos grandes grupos de Corrosin: la Generalizada y la Localizada, donde para la primera no existen subgrupos pero para la segunda si, tal y como se muestra a continuacin:

Corrosin Uniforme: La Corrosin Uniforme, como su nombre lo indica, es la que presenta un ataque igual o similar en toda la superficie metlica expuesta al medio corrosivo. Este tipo de corrosin es la ms comn y dada su naturaleza, es la que ofrece menos problemas para su medicin y control. En el Esquema 2.4.1 se muestra la apariencia de sta: Corrosin Uniforme

Esquema 2.4.1
Por otro lado, la corrosin localizada presenta en la mayora de los casos problemas ms serios, ya que no es tan fcil detectarla y medirla, presentndose en sitios donde la inspeccin o medicin es de difcil acceso, o bien, manifestndose en forma no apreciable a simple vista. La corrosin localizada se divide en macroscpica y microscpica, de la primera tenemos las siguientes: Corrosin Localizada Macroscpica Corrosin Galvnica Corrosin Por Erosin Corrosin por Agrietamiento Corrosin por Picadura Corrosin por Exfoliacin Corrosin Localizada Microscpica Corrosin por Ataque Selectivo Corrosin Intergranular Corrosin Bajo Tensin

A continuacin se describe cada uno de estos tipos de corrosin. Corrosin Galvnica: Este tipo de corrosin se presenta cuando dos metales de distinta naturaleza se encuentran en contacto elctrico y sometidos a un medio corrosivo electroltico, tal y como se muestra en el esquema 2.4.2. Corrosin Galvnica

Esquema 2.4.2 El metal que se corroe, se le llama metal activo y el que no sufre daos por corrosin se le llama metal noble, teniendo como ejemplos de unin de metales activos con nobles: Acero - Cobre, Aluminio Acero, Zinc Acero, Aluminio Cobre, etc. El mecanismo de este fenmeno, se origina por la diferencia de potenciales existentes entre los dos materiales, y en ocasiones esta propiedad se utiliza para generar corriente elctrica en pilas, bateras y acumuladores.

La forma mas adecuada de evitar este fenmeno, es diseando y construyendo equipos de un solo tipo de material, pero si es indispensable el uso de mas de uno, habr que emplear aislantes elctricos entre los diferentes materiales. Corrosin por Erosin: La Corrosin por Erosin, se presenta cuando el flujo del medio corrosivo es intenso y se ve incrementado por alguna reduccin de dimetro (Vntury) o cambio de direccin (Codos), ocasionando un desgaste mayor del material metlico, que si estuviera sometido a cualquiera de los dos fenmenos por separado ( Corrosin y Erosin). En ocasiones es difcil distinguir entre Corrosin por Erosin y el desgaste mecnico, ya que el medio corrosivo, frecuentemente porta slidos tales como arena, arcillas, etc. O bien productos de corrosin, como lo son xidos, sulfuros, etc. En el esquema 2.4.3 se muestra un ejemplo de corrosin por erosin: Corrosin por Erosin

Esquema 2.4.3 Este tipo de corrosin se puede atenuar desde el diseo, empleando materiales de construccin de mayor dureza y evitando al mximo los cambios de direccin y disminuciones de dimetro, as como tambin evitando la presencia de slidos abrasivos en el sistema. Corrosin por Agrietamiento: La formacin de grietas y hendiduras por el fenmeno de corrosin, suele formarse en regiones donde existen uniones fsicas de dos o ms materiales de la misma naturaleza o bien, de un metal con un no-metal, unin por la que penetra el medio corrosivo. Como ejemplo de esta forma, tenemos los traslapes, empaques, juntas, tornillos, pelculas de recubrimiento daado, etc. En el esquema 2.4.4 se muestra un esquema de corrosin por agrietamiento: Corrosin por Agrietamiento

Esquema 2.4.4 El origen de la corrosin por agrietamiento se atribuye a los siguientes factores existentes en el interior de la grieta: Cambio de pH Escasez de agentes corrosivos Desarrollo de iones diferentes Agotamiento del Inhibidor

Diferente velocidad de flujo. Para controlar este tipo de corrosin es necesario sellar perfectamente las uniones antes mencionadas, con el fin de evitar la incursin del medio corrosivo en estas zonas. Corrosin por Picadura: Este tipo de corrosin localizada, se presenta formando orificios en superficies metlicas relativamente no atacadas y se origina por los mismos factores atribuidos a la corrosin por agrietamiento, pudiendo considerar a una picadura como una grieta formada por s misma. Corrosin por Picadura

Esquema 2.4.5 En el esquema 2.4.5 se muestra la morfologa de la corrosin por picadura: La corrosin por picadura se puede evitar desde el diseo, ya que hay materiales ms susceptibles que otros a sufrir de este fenmeno. Adicionalmente, un buen control de corrosin aplicando correctamente inhibidores de corrosin y manteniendo limpio el equipo o sistema son medidas convenientes para evitar este fenmeno. Corrosin por Exfoliacin: Esta es una corrosin subsuperficial que se esparce por debajo de la superficie metlica y difiere de la corrosin por picadura, al presentarse en forma laminar. Este tipo de ataque es, generalmente, identificado por el aspecto escamoso y en ocasiones ampollado. En el esquema 2.4.6 se muestra el aspecto de este tipo de corrosin: Corrosin por Exfoliacin

Esquema 2.4.6 La mejor forma de evitar este dao, es seleccionando adecuadamente el material y su tratamiento trmico. Corrosin por Ataque Selectivo: Este tipo de corrosin localizada microscpica, se presenta en aleaciones en donde uno de los elementos (el ms activo), es removido o corrodo por el medio corrosive quedando el metal noble remanente poroso y carente de propiedades mecnicas. La corrosin sufrida por los latones (aleaciones cobre Zinc) conocida como descincificacin, es el ejemplo ms comn de este tipo de corrosin, en la cual el zinc, que es ms activo que el cobre, se corroe con mayor facilidad. En el Esquema 2.4.7 se muestra la apariencia de este tipo de ataque.

Corrosin por Ataque Selectivo

Esquema 2.4.7 La nica forma de combatir este de dao, es no empleando estas aleaciones en medios donde sean susceptibles a corroerse. Corrosin Intergranular: Este tipo de corrosin se presenta debido a que los materiales metlicos sometidos a ciertos medios corrosivos se ven atacados selectivamente en los lmites de grano. En casos severos suelen desprenderse granos enteros debido al gran deterioro por sus lmites, pudindose observar a simple vista una superficie rugosa. En el esquema 2.4.8 se muestra este fenmeno: Corrosin Intergranular

Esquema 2.4.8 Corrosin Bajo Tensin: Cuando el material metlico es sometido, en forma conjunta a un esfuerzo mecnico y a un ataque qumico, suelen generarse fracturas que no se formaran si dicho material solo estuviera sometido al esfuerzo fsico o al fenmeno de corrosin. Este tipo de corrosin se presenta solo para algunos materiales, que estn en contacto con medios corrosivos especficos, lo peligroso de sta, es que puede ser no appreciable durante mucho tiempo, o propagarse rpida e inesperadamente. Las fracturas o daos causados por corrosin bajo tensiones presentan quebradizas, a diferencia de otras (esfuerzos mecnicos), que generalmente muestran ductibilidad. En le esquema 2.4.9 se muestra un ejemplo de cmo se presenta este tipo de corrosin. Corrosin Bajo Tensin

Esquema 2.4.9

La mejor forma de controlar esta corrosin es seleccionando adecuadamente los materiales y sus tratamientos. Corrosin bajo aislamiento (CUI) La inspeccin externa de recipientes aislados debe incluir una revisin de la integridad del sistema de aislamiento de condiciones que podran generar la corrosin bajo aislamiento. Las fuentes de muestreo pueden incluir lluvia, fuga de agua, condensacin sistemas de drenaje, y torres de enfriamiento. Las formas ms comunes de corrosin bajo aislamiento son corrosiones localizadas de acero al carbono y SCC de acero inoxidable austentico. El alcance de un programa de inspeccin de corrosin bajo aislamiento puede variar dependiendo del clima local y del sistema de aislamiento/recubrimiento aplicado al metal. En localizaciones marinas en reas calientes puede requerir un programa muy activo (mayor frecuencia de inspeccin), en reas ms fros y secos puede no necesitar un programa tan frecuente de inspeccin. Ciertos recipientes aislados son potencialmente ms susceptibles a la corrosin bajo aislamiento e incluyen: a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) j) k) l) m) n) Aquellos expuestos a un sistema de rociado. Los expuestos a venteo de vapor. Los expuestos a sistemas de drenaje; Los expuestos a salpicaduras de proceso o ingreso de mezclas de vapores cidos. Recipientes de acero al carbono, incluyendo los aislados para proteccin personal, operando entre 25 F (4 C) y 250 F (121 C). La corrosin bajo aislamiento es particularmente agresiva donde la temperatura causa frecuente o continua condensacin y re-evaporacin de mezcla atmosfrica. Recipientes de acero al carbono que normalmente operan en servicio arriba de 250 C (121 C) pero en servicio intermitente. Recipientes de acero inoxidable que normalmente operan entre 150 F y 450 F (66 C a 204 C)(susceptible a fallas por esfuerzo qumico CSCC). Recipientes con aislamiento degradado, recubrimientos y/o envolventes. Burbujas o decolorados del aislamiento o sistemas de envolventes o bandas perdidas. Las burbujas indican ormalmente corrosin. Recipientes susceptibles a daos fsicos del aislamiento o recubrimiento, por su exposicin al medio ambiente. Terminacin del aislamiento en bridas u otros componentes. Daos o prdida del aislamiento. Costuras del aislamiento localizadas en la parte superior del recipiente o impropiamente traslapadas o selladas. Terminacin del aislamiento en recipientes verticales. Rellenos o calafateados perdidos o endurecidos.

10

3 REQUISITOS DE DISEO Y DOCUMENTACION DE LA PLANTA EN RELACION A LA INSPECCION Tema 2.3 API 579
3.1 Data Requirements 3.1.1 Original Equipment Design Data The following original equipment design data should be assembled to perform a FFS (contains Fitness-For-Service) assessment. The extent of the data required depends on the damage mechanism and assessment level. A data sheet is included in Table 2.2 to record the required information that is common to all FFS assessments. In addition, a separate data sheet is included with each section of this document to record information specific to the flaw type, damage mechanism, and assessment procedure. a. Data for pressure vessels may include some or all of the following: 1. An ASME Manufacturer's Data Report or, if the vessel is not Code stamped, other equivalent documentation or specifications. 2. Vessel fabrication drawings showing sufficient details to permit calculation of the MAWP of the component containing the flaw. If a re-rate to a different condition of pressure and/or temperature is desired (i.e. increase or decrease in conditions), this information should be available for all affected components. Detailed sketches with data necessary to perform MA FW calculations may be used if the original fabrication drawings are not available. 3. The original or updated design calculations for the load cases in Table A.l of Appendix A, as applicable, and anchor bolt calculations. 4. The inspection records for the component at the time of fabrication. 5. User Design Specification if the vessel is designed to the ASME Code, Section VIII, Division 2. 6. Material test reports. 7. Pressure-relieving device information including pressure relief valve and/or rupture disk setting and capacity information. 8. A record of the original hydro test including the test pressure and metal temperature at the time of the test or, if unavailable, the water or ambient temperature. b. Data for piping components may include some or all of the following: 1. Piping Line Lists or other documentation showing process design conditions, and a description of the piping class including material specification, pipe wall thickness and pressure-temperature rating. 2. Piping isometric drawings to the extent necessary to perform a FFS assessment. The piping isometric drawings should include sufficient details to permit a piping flexibility calculation if this analysis is deemed necessary by the Engineer in order to determine the MAWP (maximum safe or maximum allowable operating pressure) of all piping components. Detailed sketches with data necessary to perform MAWP calculations may be used if the original piping isometric drawings are not available. 3. The original or updated design calculations for the load cases in Table A. 1 of Appendix A, as applicable. 4. The inspection records for the component at the time of fabrication. 5. Material test reports. 6. A record of the original hydro test including the test pressure and metal temperature at the time of the test, or if unavailable, the water or ambient temperature. c. Data for tanks may include some or all of the following: 1. The original API data sheet. 2. Fabrication drawings showing sufficient details to permit calculation of the maximum fill height (MFH) for atmospheric storage tanks and the MAWP for low pressure storage tanks.

11

Detailed data with sketches where necessary may be used if the original fabrication drawings are not available. 3. The original or updated design calculations for the load cases in Table A.l of Appendix A, as applicable, and anchor bolt calculations. 4. The inspection records for the component at the time of fabrication. 5. Material test reports. 6. A record of the last hydro test performed including the test pressure and metal temperature at the time of the test or, if unavailable, the water or ambient temperature. 3.1.2 If some of these data are not available, physical measurements or field inspection of the component should be made to provide the information necessary to perform the assessment. 3.2 Maintenance And Operational History 3.2.1 A progressive record including, but not limited to, the following should be available for the equipment being evaluated. The extent of the data required depends on the damage mechanism and assessment level. a. The actual operating envelope consisting of pressure and temperature, including upset conditions should be obtained. If the actual operating conditions envelope is not available, an approximation of one should be developed based upon available operational data and consultation with operating personnel. An operating histogram may be required consisting of pressure and temperature data recorded simultaneously for some types of FFS assessments (e.g., Section 10.0 for components operating in the creep regime). b. Documentation of any significant changes in service conditions including pressure, temperature, fluid content and corrosion rate. Both past and future service conditions should be reviewed and documented. c. The date of installation and a summary of all alterations and repairs including required calculations, material changes, drawings and repair procedures. The calculations should include the required wall thicknesses and MAWP (MFH for atmospheric storage tanks) including definition and allowances for supplemental loads such as static liquid head, wind, and earthquake loads. d. Records of all hydro tests performed as part of the repair including the test pressure and metal temperature at the time of the tests or, if unavailable, the water or ambient temperature at the time of the test if known. e. Results of prior in-service examinations including wall thickness measurements and other NDE results that may assist in determining the structural integrity of the component and in establishing a corrosion rate. f. Records of all internal repairs, weld build-up and overlay, and modifications of internals. g. Records of "out-of-plumb" readings for vertical vessels. h. Foundation settlement records if the corrosion being evaluated is located in the bottom shell course of the tank. If some of these data are not available, physical measurements should be made to provide the information necessary to perform the assessment. 3.2.2 Required Data/Measurements For A FFS Assessment Each section in this document which contains FFS assessment procedures includes specific

12

requirements for data measurements and flaw characterization based on the damage mechanism being evaluated. Examples of flaw characterization include thickness profiles for local corrosion/erosion, pitting depth, and dimensions of crack-like flaws. The extent of information and data required for a FFS assessment is dependent on the assessment level and damage mechanism being evaluated. The Future Corrosion Allowance (FCA) should be established for the intended future operating period. The FCA should be based on past inspection information or corrosion rate data relative to the component material in a similar environment. Corrosion rate data may be obtained from API Publication 581 or other sources (see paragraph A.2.7 of Appendix A). The FCA is calculated by multiplying the anticipated corrosion rate by the future service period considering inspection interval requirements of the applicable inspection code. The FFS assessment procedures in this document include provisions to ensure that the FCA is available for the future intended operating period. Recommendations For Inspection Technique And Sizing Requirements Recommendations for Non Destructive Examination (NDE) procedures with regard to detection and sizing of a particular damage mechanism and/or flaw type are provided in each section. 3.2.3 Assessment Techniques And Acceptance Criteria Three Levels of assessment are provided in each Section of this document which cover FFS assessment procedures. A logic diagram is included in each Section to illustrate how these assessment levels are interrelated. In general, each assessment level provides a balance between conservatism, the amount of information required for the evaluation, the skill of the personnel performing the assessment, and the complexity of analysis being performed. Level 1 is the most conservative, but is easiest to use. Practitioners usually proceed sequentially from a Level 1 to a Level 3 analysis (unless otherwise directed by the assessment techniques) if the current assessment level does not provide an acceptable result, or a clear course of action cannot be determined. A general overview of each assessment level and its intended use are described below. Level 1 - The assessment procedures included in this level are intended to provide conservative screening criteria that can be utilized with a minimum amount of inspection or component information. Level 1 assessments may be performed by either plant inspection or engineering personnel (see Section 1, paragraphs 1.4.2 and 1.4.3). Level 2 - The assessment procedures included in this level are intended to provide a more detailed evaluation that produces results that are more precise than those from a Level 1 assessment. In a Level 2 Assessment, inspection information similar to that required for a Level 1 assessment are needed; however, more detailed calculations are used in the evaluation. Level 2 assessments would typically be conducted by plant engineers, or engineering specialists experienced and knowledgeable in performing FFS assessments. Level 3 - The assessment procedures included in this level are intended to provide the most detailed evaluation which produces results that are more precise than those from a Level 2 assessment. In a Level 3 Assessment the most detailed inspection and component information is typically required, and the recommended analysis is based on numerical techniques such as the finite element method. A Level 3 analysis is primarily intended for use by engineering specialists experienced and knowledgeable in performing FFS assessments.

13

4 CONCEPTOS PRINCIPALES SOBRE LAS NORMAS APLICABLES EN LA INSPECCION (API 510, 570, 580, 581, 579, ASME SECC. XI)
API 510 This inspection code covers the maintenance inspection, repair, alteration, and re-rating procedures for pressure vessels used by the petroleum and chemical process industries. The application of this inspection code is restricted to organizations that employ or have access to an authorized inspection agency as defined in 3.4. Except as provided in 1.2, the use of this inspection code is restricted to organizations that employ or have access to engineering and inspection personnel or organizations that are technically qualified to maintain, inspect, repair, alter, or re-rate pressure vessels. Pressure vessel inspectors are to be certified as stated in this inspection code. Since other codes covering specific industries and general service applications already exist (for example, Sections VI, VII, and XI of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code and the National Board Inspection Code), the industries that fit within the restrictions above have developed this inspection code to fulfill their own specific requirements. This inspection code applies to vessels constructed in accordance with the API/ASME Code for Unfired Pressure Vessels for Petroleum Liquids and Gases, Section VIII of the ASME Code, and other recognized pressure vessel codes; to nonstandard vessels; and to other vessels constructed noncode or approved as jurisdictional special. Examples of nonstandard vessels include: a. A vessel fabricated to a recognized construction code but has lost its nameplate or stamping. b. A vessel not fabricated to a recognized construction code and meeting no known recognized standard. This inspection code is only applicable to vessels that have been placed in service (including items further described in 1.2) and have been inspected by an authorized inspection agency or repaired by a repair organization as defined in 3.15. Adoption and use of this inspection code does not permit its use in conflict with any prevailing regulatory requirements. API 570 API 570 covers inspections, repair, alteration, and re-rating procedures for metallic piping system that have been in-service. API 570 was developed for the petroleum refining and chemical process industries but may be used, where practical, for any piping system. It is intented for use by organizations that maintain or have access to an authorized inspection agency, a repair organization and technically qualified piping engineers, inspectors, and examiners, all as defined in Seccion 3. API 570 Shall not be used as a substitute for the original construction requirements governing a piping system before it is placed in-service; not shall it be used in conflict with any prevailing regulatory requirements.

API 572 This Recommended Practice (RP) cover the inspection of pressure vessels and the standards for their constructions and maintenance. The reasons for inspection, causes of deterioration,

14

frequency and methods of inspection, methods of repair, and preparation of records and reports are covered. Safe operation is emphasized. API 579 The ASME and API design codes and standards for pressurized equipment provide rules for the design, fabrication, inspection and testing of new pressure vessels, piping systems, and storage tanks. These codes do not address the fact that equipment degrades while in-service and that deficiencies due to degradation or from original fabrication may be found during subsequent inspections. Fitness-For-Service (FFS ) assessments are quantitative engineering evaluations which are performed to demonstrate the structural integrity of an in-service component containing a flaw or damage. This Recommended Practice provides guidance for conducting FFS assessments using methodologies specifically prepared for equipment in the refining and petrochemical industry. The guidelines provided in this recommended practice can be used to make run-repair-replace decisions to help ensure that pressurized equipment containing flaws which have been identified by inspection can continue to operate safely. API 580 The purpose of this document is to provide users with the basic elements for developing and implementing a risk-based inspection (RBI) program. The methodology is presented in a step-bystep manner to the maximum extent practicable. Items covered are: a. An introduction to the concepts and principles of risk based inspection for risk management; and. b. Individual sections that describe the steps in applying these principles within the framework of the RBI process: 1. Planning the RBI Assessment. 2. Data and Information Collection. 3. Identifying Deterioration Mechanisms and Failure Modes. 4. Assessing Probability of Failure. 5. Assessing Consequence of Failure. 6. Risk Determination, Assessment and Management. 7. Risk Management with Inspection Activities. 8. Other Risk Mitigation Activities. 9. Reassessment and Updating. 10. Roles, Responsibilities, Training and Qualifications. 11. Documentation and record-keeping. The expected outcome from the application of the RBI process should be the linkage of risks with appropriate inspection or other risk mitigation activities to manage the risks. The RBI process is capable of generating: a. A ranking by risk of all equipment evaluated. b. A detailed description of the inspection plan to be employed for each equipment item, including: 1. Inspection method(s) that should be used (e.g., visual, UT, Radiography, WFMT). 2. Extent of application of the inspection method(s) (e.g., percent of total area examined or specific locations). 3. Timing of inspections/examinations. 4. Risk management achieved through implementation of the inspection plan.

15

c. A description of any other risk mitigation activities (such as repairs, replacements or safety equipment upgrades). d. The expected risk levels of all equipment after the inspection plan and other risk mitigation activities have been implemented.

16

5 ALCANCE Y PLANES DE INSPECCION EN SERVICIO API 510

All pressure vessels used for Exploration and Production (E&P) service [for example, drilling, producing, gathering, transporting, lease processing, and treating liquid petroleum, natural gas, and associated salt water (brine)] may be inspected under the alternative rules set forth in Section 8. Except for Section 6, all of the sections in this inspection code are applicable to pressure vessels in E&P service. The alternative rules in Section 8 are intended for services that may be regulated under safety, spill, emission, or transportation controls by the U.S. Coast Guard; the Office of Hazardous Materials Transportation of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and other units of DOT; the Minerals Management Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior; state and local oil and gas agencies; or any other regulatory commission. The following are excluded from the specific requirements of this inspection code: a. Pressure vessels on movable structures covered by other jurisdictional regulations (see Appendix A). b. All classes of containers listed for exemption from construction in the scope of Section VIII, Division 1, of the ASME Code (see Appendix A). c. Pressure vessels that do not exceed the following volumes and pressures: 1. Five cubic feet (0.141 cubic meters) in volume and 250 pounds per square inch (1723.1 kilopascals) design pressure. 2. One and a half cubic feet (0.042 cubic meters) in volume and 600 pounds per square inch (4136.9 kilopascals) design pressure (see Appendix A). This inspection code recognizes fitness-for-service concepts for evaluating in-service degradation of pressure-containing components. API RP 579 provides detailed assessment procedures for specific types of degradation that are referenced in this code.

API 570
Except as a provided in 1.2.2, API 570 applies to piping systems for process fluids, hydrocarbons, and similar flammable or toxic fluid services, such as the following: a. Raw, intermediate, and finished petroleum products. b. Raw, intermediate, and finished chemical products. c. Catalyst line. d. Hydrogen, natural gas, fuel gas, and flare system. e. Sour water and hazardous waste streams above threshold limits, as defined by jurisdictional regulations. f. Hazardous chemical above threshold limits, as defined by jurisdictional regulations. Limitations API 570 shall not be used as a substitute for the original construction requirements governing a piping system before it is placed in-service; nor shall it be used in conflict with any prevailing regulatory requirements.

API 572
Before starting the inspection of a pressure vessel, especially one in severe service, the inspector should determine the pressure, temperature, and service conditions under which the vessel has been operated since the last inspection. The inspector should also be aware of equipment construction details including materials of construction, the presence of internal attachments, and weld details. He should also confer with operations to determine whether there have been any abnormal operating conditions or disturbances such as

17

excessive pressures or temperatures. This data may offer valuable clues to the type and location of corrosion and to other forms of deterioration that may have occurred such as scaling, bulging, and warping. The inspector should develop and exercise sound judgment on the extent and kinds of inspection required for each vessel. Careful visual inspection of every vessel is of paramount importance to determine other forms of inspection that may need to be made. Appropriate surface preparation is essential to all inspection methods. The extent to which special surface preparation may be required depends on the particular circumstances involved. Wire brushing, sandblasting, high-pressure water blasting, chipping, or a combination of these operations may be required in addition to routine cleaning. If external or internal coverings such as insulation, refractory linings, or corrosion-resistant linings are in good condition and without evidence of an unsafe condition behind them, it may not be necessary to remove them for inspection of the vessel. However, it may sometimes be advisable to remove small portions to investigate their condition and the condition of the metal behind them, particularly if previous inspections have indicated corrosion. When any covering is found to be defective, a sufficient amount of the covering in the vicinity of the defect should be removed to find out whether the base metal is deteriorating and to determine the extent of the deterioration. Where operating deposits such as coke are normally permitted to remain on a vessel surface, it is important to determine the condition of the vessel surface behind the deposits. This may require through removal of deposit in selected critical areas for spot check examination. Where vessel are equipped with removable internals, the internals need not be completely removed, provided reasonable assurance exists that deterioration in not occurring beyond that found in more readily accessible parts of the vessel.

API 579
The methods and procedures in this recommended practice are intended to supplement and augment the requirements in API 510, API 570 and API 653. The assessment procedures in this recommended practice can be used for fitness-for-service assessments and/or re-rating of components designed and constructed to the following codes: ASME B&PV Code, Section VIII, Division 1 ASME B&PV Code, Section VIII, Division 2 ASME B&PV Code, Section 1 ASME 831.3 Piping Code ASME B31.1 Piping Code API 650 API 620 The assessment procedures in this recommended practice may also be applied to pressure containing equipment constructed to other recognized codes and standards, including international and internal corporate standards. This recommended practice has broad application since the assessment procedures are based on allowable stress methods and plastic collapse loads for non- crack-like flaws, and FAD-based strategies for crack-like flaws (see Section 2, paragraph 2.4.2). The user is advised to first review the validation discussion of Appendix H when the procedures of this recommended practice are applied to pressure containing equipment not constructed to the codes listed in paragraph 1.2.2. The information in Appendix H, along with a knowledge of the of differences in design codes, should enable the user to factor, scale, or adjust the acceptance limits of this recommended practice such that equivalent FFS in-service margins can be attained

18

for equipment not constructed to these codes. When evaluating other codes and standards the following attributes of the ASME and API design codes should be considered: Material specifications Upper and/or lower temperature limits for specific materials Material strength properties and the design allowable stress basis Material fracture toughness requirements Design rules for shell sections Design rules for shell discontinuities such as nozzles and conical transitions Design requirements for cyclic loads Design requirements for operation in the creep range Weld joint efficiency or quality factors Fabrication details and quality of workmanship Inspection requirements, particularly for welded joints As an alternative, users may elect to correlate the pressure-containing component's material specification to an equivalent ASME or API listed material specification to determine an associated allowable stress. This approach provides an entry point into the ASME or API codes (refer also to Appendix A) wherein the pressure-containing component is reconciled or generally made equivalent to the design bases assumed for this recommended practice. Hence general equivalence is established and the user may then apply the acceptance limits of these fitness for service procedures unaltered. Equivalent ASME and ASTM material specifications provide a satisfactory means for initiating a reconciliation between the ASME and API design codes and other codes and standards. However, the user is cautioned to also consider the effects of fabrication and inspection requirements on the design basis (e.g., joint efficiency with respect to minimum thickness sizing). The Fitness-For-Service assessment procedures in this recommended practice cover both the present integrity of the component given a current state of damage and the projected remaining life. Assessment techniques are included to evaluate flaws including: general and localized corrosion, widespread and localized pitting, blisters and laminations, weld misalignment and shell distortions, and crack-like flaws including environmental cracking. In addition, evaluation techniques are provided for condition assessment of equipment including resistance to brittle fracture, long-term creep damage, and fire damage. Analytical procedures, material properties including environmental effects, NDE guidelines and documentation requirements are included in the fitness-for-service assessment procedures in this document. In addition, both qualitative and quantitative guidance for establishing remaining life and in-service margins for continued operation of equipment are provided in regards to future operating conditions and environmental compatibility. The Fitness-For-Service assessment procedures in this recommended practice cover situations involving flaws commonly encountered in the refining and petrochemical industry in pressure vessels, piping and tankage. The procedures are not intended to provide a definitive guideline for every possible situation that may be encountered. However, flexibility is provided to the user in the form of an advanced assessment level to handle uncommon situations that may require a more detailed analysis. The methods and procedures in this recommended practice can also be used in conjunction with the National Board Inspection Code (NBIC) to the extent currently permitted by that document and local regulations.

19

API 580
Key elements that should exist in any RBI program are: a. Management systems for maintaining documentation, personnel qualifications, data requirements and analysis updates. b. Documented method for probability of failure determination. c. Documented method for consequence of failure determination. d. Documented methodology for managing risk through inspection and other mitigation activities. However, all the elements outlined in 1.1 should be adequately addressed in RBI applications, in accordance with the recommended practices in this document. RBI Benefits and Limitations The primary work products of the RBI assessment and management approach are plans that address ways to manage risks on an equipment level. These equipment plans highlight risks from a safety/health/environment perspective and/or from an economic standpoint. In these plans, cost-effective actions for risk mitigation are recommended along with the resulting level of risk mitigation expected. Implementation of these plans provides one of the following: a. An overall reduction in risk for the facilities and equipment assessed. b. An acceptance/understanding of the current risk. The RBI plans also identify equipment that does not require inspection or some other form of mitigation because of the acceptable level of risk associated with the equipments current operation. In this way, inspection and maintenance activities can be focused and more cost effective. This often results in a significant reduction in the amount of inspection data that is collected. This focus on a smaller set of data should result in more accurate information. In some cases, in addition to risk reductions and process safety improvements, RBI plans may result in cost reductions. RBI is based on sound, proven risk assessment and management principles. Nonetheless, RBI will not compensate for: a. Inaccurate or missing information. b. Inadequate designs or faulty equipment installation. c. Operating outside the acceptable design envelope. d. Not effectively executing the plans. e. Lack of qualified personnel or teamwork. f. Lack of sound engineering or operational judgment. Industry scope Although the risk management principles and concepts that RBI is built on are universally applicable, RP 580 is specifically targeted at the application of RBI in the hydrocarbon and chemical process industry. Flexibility in Application Because of the broad diversity in organizations size, culture, federal and/or local regulatory requirements, RP 580 offers users the flexibility to apply the RBI methodology within the context of existing corporate risk management practices and to accommodate unique local circumstances. The document is designed to provide a framework that clarifies the expected attributes of a quality risk assessment without imposing undue constraints on users. RP 580 is intended to promote consistency and

20

quality in the identification, assessment and management of risks pertaining to material deterioration, which could lead to loss of containment. Many types of RBI methods exist and are currently being applied throughout industry. This document is not intended to single out one specific approach as the recommended method for conducting a RBI effort. The document instead is intended to clarify the elements of a RBI analysis. Mechanical Integrity Focused The RBI process is focused on maintaining the mechanical integrity of pressure equipment items and minimizing the risk of loss of containment due to deterioration. RBI is not a substitute for a process hazards analysis (PHA) or HAZOP. Typically, PHA risk assessments focus on the process unit design and operating practices and their adequacy given the units current or anticipated operating conditions. RBI complements the PHA by focusing on the mechanical integrity related deterioration mechanisms and risk management through inspection. RBI also is complementary to reliability centered maintenance (RCM) programs in that both programs are focused on understanding failure modes, addressing the modes and therefore improving the reliability of equipment and process facilities. Equipment Covered The following types of pressurized equipment and associated components/internals are covered by this document: a. Pressure vesselsall pressure containing components. b. Process pipingpipe and piping components. c. Storage tanksatmospheric and pressurized. d. Rotating equipmentpressure containing components. e. Boilers and heaterspressurized components. f. Heat exchangers (shells, heads, channels and bundles). g. Pressure relief devices. Equipment Not Covered The following non-pressurized equipment is not covered by this document: a. Instrument and control systems. b. Electrical systems. c. Structural systems. d. Machinery components (except pump and compressor casings). TARGET AUDIENCE The primary audience for RP 580 is inspection and engineering personnel who are responsible for the mechanical integrity and operability of equipment covered by this recommended practice. However, while an organizations Inspection/Materials Engineering group may champion the RBI initiative, RBI is not exclusively an inspection activity. RBI requires the involvement of various segments of the organization such as engineering, maintenance and operations. Implementation of the resulting RBI product (e.g., inspection plans, replacement/upgrading recommendations, etc.) may rest with more than one segment of the organization. RBI requires the commitment and cooperation of the total organization. In this context, while the primary audience may be inspection and materials engineering personnel, others within the organization who are

21

likely to be involved should be familiar with the concepts and principles embodied in the RBI methodology.

22

6 ENSAYOS NO DESTRUCTIVOS Asme sec V alcance y descripcin de cada mtodo Los ensayos no destructivos se realizarn de acuerdo con el cdigo ASME Sec. V. En el cdigo ASME Sec. V se cubren los mtodos siguientes: Artculo 1.- Requerimientos Generales Artculo 2.- Examinacin radiogrfica Artculo 4.- Examinacin ultrasnica mtodos para inspeccin en servicio Artculo 5.- Examinacin ultrasnica mtodos para materiales y fabricacin Artculo 6.- Examinacin por lquidos penetrantes Artculo 7.- Examinacin por partculas magnticas Artculo 8.- Examinacin por corriente de Eddy para productos tubulares Artculo 9.- Examinacin visual Artculo 10.- Examinacin por prueba de fuga Artculo 11.- Examinacin por emisin acstica de recipientes de FRP Artculo 12.- Examinacin por emisin acstica de recipientes metlicos Artculo 13.- Examinacin por emisin acstica de monitoreo continuo

23

Artculo 1.- Requerimientos Generales

24

Artculo 2.- Examinacin radiogrfica

25

Artculo 4.- Examinacin ultrasnica mtodos para inspeccin en servicio

26

Artculo 5.- Examinacin ultrasnica mtodos para materiales y fabricacin

27

Artculo 6.- Examinacin por lquidos penetrantes

28

Artculo 7.- Examinacin por partculas magnticas

29

Artculo 8.- Examinacin por corriente de Eddy para productos tubulares

30

Artculo 9.- Examinacin visual

31

Artculo 10.- Examinacin por prueba de fuga

32

Artculo 11.- Examinacin por emisin acstica de recipientes de FRP

33

Artculo 12.- Examinacin por emisin acstica de recipientes metlicos

34

Artculo 13.- Examinacin por emisin acstica de monitoreo continuo

35

7.- LINEAMIENTOS PARA EVALUAR LA INTEGRIDAD ESTRUCTURAL Y VIDA REMANENTE DE EQUIPOS E INSTALACIONES

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

8 BASE DE DATOS PARA LAS INSPECCIONES EN SERVICIO

8.1.-Data Requirements 8.1.1.- Original Equipment Design Data The following original equipment design data should be assembled to perform a FFS assessment. The extent of the data required depends on the damage mechanism and assessment level. A data sheet is included in Table 2.2 to record the required information that is common to all FFS assessments. In addition, a separate data sheet is included with each section of this document to record information specific to the flaw type, damage mechanism, and assessment procedure. a. Data for pressure vessels may include some or all of the following: 1. An ASME Manufacturer's Data Report or, if the vessel is not Code stamped, other equivalent documentation or specifications. 2. Vessel fabrication drawings showing sufficient details to permit calculation of the MA FW of the component containing the flaw. If a rerate to a different condition of pressure and/or temperature is desired (i.e. increase or decrease in conditions), this information should be available for all affected components. Detailed sketches with data necessary to perform MA FW calculations may be used if the original fabrication drawings are not available. 3. The original or updated design calculations for the load cases in Table A.l of Appendix A, as applicable, and anchor bolt calculations. 4. The inspection records for the component at the time of fabrication. 5. User Design Specification if the vessel is designed to the ASME Code, Section VIII, Division 2. 6. Material test reports. 7. Pressure-relieving device information including pressure relief valve andlor rupture disk setting and capacity information. 8. A record of the original hydrotest including the test pressure and metal temperature at the time of the test or, if unavailable, the water or ambient temperature. b. Data for piping components may include some or all of the following: 1. Piping Line Lists or other documentation showing process design conditions, and a description of the piping class including material specification, pipe wall thickness and pressure-temperature rating. 2. Piping isometric drawings to the extent necessary to perform a FFS assessment. The piping isometric drawings should include sufficient details to permit a piping flexibility calculation if this analysis is deemed necessary by the Engineer in order to determine the MA WP (maximum safe or maximum allowable operating pressure) of all piping components. Detailed sketches with data necessary to perform MA WAF' calculations may be used if the original piping isometric drawings are not available. 3. The original or updated design calculations for the load cases in Table A. 1 of Appendix A, as applicable. 4. The inspection records for the component at the time of fabrication. 5. Material test reports. 6. A record of the original hydrotest including the test pressure and metal temperature at the time of the test, or if unavailable, the water or ambient temperature. c. Data for tanks may include some or all of the following: 1. The original API data sheet. 2. Fabrication drawings showing sufficient details to permit calculation of the maximum fill height (MFH) for atmospheric storage tanks and the MA FW for low pressure storage tanks. Detailed data with sketches where necessary may be used if the original fabrication drawings are not available.

54

3. The original or updated design calculations for the load cases in Table A.l of Appendix A, as applicable, and anchor bolt calculations. 4. The inspection records for the component at the time of fabrication. 5. Material test reports. 6. A record of the last hydrotest performed including the test pressure and metal temperature at the time of the test or, if unavailable, the water or ambient temperature. 8.1.2 If some of these data are not available, physical measurements or field inspection of the component should be made to provide the information necessary to perform the assessment. 8.1.3 Maintenance And Operational History 8.1.3.1 A progressive record including, but not limited to, the following should be available for the equipment being evaluated. The extent of the data required depends on the damage mechanism and assessment level. a. The actual operating envelope consisting of pressure and temperature, including upset conditions should be obtained. If the actual operating conditions envelope is not available, an approximation of one should be developed based upon available operational data and consultation with operating personnel. An operating histogram may be required consisting of pressure and temperature data recorded simultaneously for some types of FF,S assessments (e.g., Section 10.0 for components operating in the creep regime). b. Documentation of any significant changes in service conditions including pressure, temperature, fluid content and corrosion rate. Both past and future service conditions should be reviewed and documented. c. The date of installation and a summary of all alterations and repairs including required calculations, material changes, drawings and repair procedures. The calculations should include the required wall thicknesses and UAFW (MFHfor atmospheric storage tanks) including definition and allowances for supplemental loads such as static liquid head, wind, and earthquake loads. d. Records of all hydrotests performed as part of the repair including the test pressure and metal temperature at the time of the tests or, if unavailable, the water or ambient temperature at the time of the test if known. e. Results of prior in-service examinations including wall thickness measurements and other NDE results that may assist in determining the structural integrity of the component and in establishing a corrosion rate. f. Records of all internal repairs, weld build-up and overlay, and modifications of intemals. g. Records of "out-of-plumb" readings for vertical vessels. h. Foundation settlement records if the corrosion being evaluated is located in the bottom shell course of the tank. If some of these data are not available, physical measurements should be made to provide the information necessary to perform the assessment.

55

56

57

9 CONCEPTOS Y DESCRIPCION DE LOS REGISTROS DE CALIDAD RELACIONADOS CON LA INSPECCION EN SERVICIO

6.7 RECORDS Pressure vessel owners and users shall maintain permanent and progressive records of their pressure vessels. Permanent records will be maintained throughout the service life of each vessel; progressive records will be regularly updated to include new information pertinent to the operation, inspection, and maintenance history of the vessel. Pressure vessel records shall contain four types of vessel information pertinent to mechanical integrity as follows: a. Construction and design information. For example, equipment serial number or other identifier, manufacturers data reports (MDRs), design specification data, design calculations (where MDRs are unavailable), and construction drawings. For pressure vessels that have no nameplate and minimal or no design and construction documentation, the following steps may be used to verify operating integrity: i. Perform inspection to determine condition of the vessel. Make any necessary repairs. ii. Define design parameters and prepare drawings and calculations. iii. Base calculations on applicable codes and standards and condition of the vessel following any repairs. Do not use allowable stress values based on design factor of 3.5. See ASME Code Section VIII, Division 1, paragraph UG-10(c) for guidance on evaluation of unidentified materials. If UG-10 (c) is not followed, then for carbon steels, use allowable stresses for SA283 Grade C; and for alloy and nonferrous materials, use x-ray fluorescence analysis to determine material type on which to base allowable stress values. When extent of radiography originally performed is not known, use joint factor of 0.7 for butt welds, or consider performing radiography if a higher joint factor is required. (Recognize that performing radiography on welds in a vessel with minimal or no design and construction documentation may result in the need for a fitness-for-service assessment and significant repairs.) iv. Attach a nameplate or stamping showing the maximum allowable working pressure and temperature, minimum allowable temperature, and date. v. Perform pressure test as soon as practical, as required by code of construction used for design calculations. b. Operating and inspection history. For example, operating conditions, including process upsets that may affect mechanical integrity, inspection reports, and data for each type of inspection conducted (for example, internal, external, thickness measurements), and inspection recommendations for repair. See Appendix C for sample pressure vessel inspection records. Inspection reports shall document the date of each inspection and/or test, the date of the next scheduled inspection, the name of the person who performed the inspection and/or test, the serial number or other identifier of the equipment inspected, a description of the inspection and/or test performed, and the results of the inspection and/or test. c. Repair, alteration, and rerating information. For example, (1) repair and alteration forms like that shown in Appendix D, (2) reports indicating that equipment still in-service with identified deficiencies or recommendations for repair are suitable for continued service until repairs can be completed, and (3) re-rating documentation (including rerating calculations, new design conditions, and evidence of stamping). d. Fitness-for-service assessment documentation requirements are described in API RP 579, Section 2.8. Specific documentation requirements for the type of flaw being assessed are provided in the appropriate section of API RP 579.

58

59

60

Refrencias.
API 510 Pressure Vessel Inspection Code: Maintenance Inspection, Rating, Repair, and Alteration API 570 Piping Inspection code: Inspection, repair, alteration and rerating of InService Piping System. API 572 Inspection of Pressure Vessels (Towers, Drums, Reactors, Heats Exchangers, and Condensers). API 579 Fitness-for-Service

API 580 Risk-based Inspection

DCSSI-L-SI-006 LINEAMIENTO CORPORATIVO PARA LA INSPECCION DE RECIPIENTES A PRESION

61