The ASME/API Inservice Inspection Joint Committee is continuing with its charter to develop and maintain a standard addressing inspection, repair, alteration and rerating for pressure vessels and piping systems after they have been placed into service for the petroleum refining and chemical process industries. This article is an update on the progress toward that goal and an explanation of some of the issues surrounding the effort.
Introduction
In the mid 1990’s the API Subcommittee on Inspection (SCI) started discussions about creating a new international standard on In-Service Inspection of Pressure Vessels and Piping in the Petroleum Refining and Chemical Process Industries. Originally this standard was envisioned to be a joint effort including the API, ASME, and NB. But after several years or organizational efforts to get the project kick-started the National Board declined to participate, so the API and ASME joined forces to create the standard.
In the 2002 timeframe the API Committee on Refinery Equipment (CRE) and the ASME Board on Pressure Technology Codes & Standards (BPTCS) formed an Ad Hoc Project Team to explore the issues surrounding the creation of an In-Service Inspection Joint Code (ISIJC) for the petroleum refining and chemical process industries. That joint API/ASME Project Team produced a plan in the form of a white paper for the development of the ISIJC, including a proposed charter, organization, member participation, funding, timetable, proposed table of contents, etc. In 2005, both the API CRE and ASME BPTCS endorsed the plan and chartered the formation of the ISIJC committee, to draft the ISIJC for joint publication by both organizations. In January 2006, the first meeting of the ISIJC committee convened to start drafting the ISIJC. In the summer of 2007, the first draft of the new ISIJC was balloted to the two organizations. Nearly 450 comments were received on the first ballot. Based on that input, a second ballot is being prepared, which is expected to be issued early in 2008. Since one of the criticisms of the first ballot was that the one month balloting period was insufficient for a thorough review of a first draft, it is envisioned that the second balloting period will be longer.
Comments and Discussion
There are no comments yet.
Add a Comment
Please log in or register to participate in comments and discussions.