Another reader speaks on the pipeline

The following letter was sent by Max Domacena, one of our readers, reacting to an earlier published letter by another reader on the 117-kilometer pipeline owned and operated by First Philippine Industrial Corp. that sprung a leak in an urban residential area in Bangkal, Makati last year.

Our letter sender offers some fairly large amount of technical jargon that comes with his assessment plus the fact that he had said in his closing paragraph that he does not speak for FPIC nor does he contest or dispute any views shared by others.

This column has prided itself with giving readers their fair share of space. In this regard, we are printing a significant part of his letter. Read on.

“This letter refers to comments specifically made by Mr. Crispino “Sonny” de Castro allied to the … subject that appeared in your column BizLinks of The Philippine Star dated 17 February 2012.

“I would like to point some comments to two main issues Mr. De Castro had mentioned as detailed:

“(1) Pipeline is 40 years old and need to be retired or decommissioned.

“In aspect of decommissioning or retiring a pipeline or pressure vessel, material wall thickness (WT) is a major contributory factor to be considered. FPIC claimed that during the series of inspection carried out by sophisticated pipeline internal gauging (PIG) inspection device, almost the entire pipeline [was] found [to] have no or major defects, and the pipe wall thickness (WT) did within tolerable limit of International Codes and Standards (i.e., ASME B31.4, API 1104, etc.) except the section within West Tower Condominium where the line have pinhole leaks yet manageable for repair.

“In this aspect, my view [on the] FPIC decision are based on Codes & Standards and (ASME) TPI-SGS technical analysis, and may have been concurred by DOE and other government agencies involved for continuous usage of the pipeline even [if] it has been in service for more than 40 years or [its] designed life has been reached for technical rationale that the entire pipeline integrity relevant to safety is not yet compromised as it is still within the limit of acceptability.

“(ASME) TPI-SGS like other internationally recognized inspection agencies as TUV, BV, LOYDS, ABS and Saudi ARAMCO based KW, JB, MITSUI and VETCO are technically knowledgeable, trained, experienced, expert and competent in this field and all other fields covering i.e. Oil and Gas Development, Power Generation, Shipbuilding, etc.

‘Most of these inspection agencies were accredited by the pipeline companies that I worked (in parallel with or counterpart) to include SGS. In Asia and Middle East, SGS and ABS are dominant inspection agencies.

“(2) Pressurization of the pipeline and test medium used.

“The sectionalizing of the pipeline (Caltex and Shell lines, Lipa line and Mainline) for the purpose of safe pressurization and attainment of factual data and subjecting to different test pressure is allowed and acceptable by the code.

“The test of 12, 14, 40 bars pressure (MAOP) respectively may have been intended for tightness integrity test for other method of repair (if carried out) such as bolting clamp type split tee or welding circumferential sleeve and subjecting to 100 percent magnetic particle examination (NDT-MT) to the damaged pipe section and disturbed existing mechanical (flange) joints of the line.

“The surged-in pressure may be attributed to trapped air [that] was not adequately vented or removed resulting in erratic pressure build up which is noticeable on test gages. If the defective section of the line during repair was not subjected to alteration or major repair (hot work) as complete replacement of defective section, the issue of 110 percent or 125 percent MAWP or MAOP hydrostatic testing is not mandatory.

“This type of testing is mandatorily required by the code if there is alteration or major repair carried out as the testing is intended only to determine the newly welded (butt) joint integrity.

“Even [if] there is major work carried out and during engineering evaluation, [and] the repaired line (welded joint) is not feasible for hydrostatic testing, it could be waived through subjecting the repaired welded joint to 100 percent radiography examination (NDT-RT) which is specified and acceptable by the code.

“The test medium as fuel in place of water is allowed by the code (API-570). As rationale for deviation, if water used will adversely affect the piping system … and its disposal will present environmental problem as more or less 25000 cubic meters or 25 million liters are subject to be disposed.

“In the method of conducting test to where three continuous days of holding period is required seems strange. In my view and also as [the] code states for UG/AG pipelines, a 24-hour period is [the] required duration of test. In addition, as assurance of the test, a minimum of two calibrated test gauges of proven accuracy and pressure recorders are to be used.

Conclusion

“Based on what had been reported (print media) by FPIC and having employed unquestionable services of experts as SGS, DOE and other government agencies, utilizing sophisticated equipment, execution of all forms of activities IAW with Codes and Standards, in my view then the almost never ending problem of the leaking pipeline was soundly repaired and addressed accordingly.

“There is an assurance for reliability and safety of operation of the pipeline. Extending the services or design life of the pipeline is warranted and justified. Fear of future leaking of the repaired pipeline based on its present status (repaired and restored) as predicted can be set aside.

“The involvement of PSME as counterpart of ASME (if there is) as suggested and reported on one of the daily newspaper dated 22 February 2012 in my view is technically unnecessary. In the pipeline industry, the services of an ASME-TPI (can be interpreted as certifying authority) is not a mandatory code requirement which is contrary in the manufacture of ASME coded pressure vessel to where ASME approved TPI is code requirement to certify the manufactured pressure vessel.

“FPIC, having (ASME) TPI-SGS, can be interpreted as providing an additional assurance and commitment that the rehabilitation of the damaged pipeline in all aspects is being done IAW with applicable international pipeline codes and standards and possibly local requirements or standards.

“In summary, FPIC has exhausted all the necessary applicable solution to bring back the life of the pipeline. With this the continuous opposition as to the restoration of the pipeline operation has to be considered, interpreted positively and lifted or allowed as necessary then.

“I have never been involved or seen how the damaged pipeline was repaired or restored. The comments made are purely my personal views and whatsoever not disputing or contesting the views shared by others specifically by Mr. De Castro. Also it should not be viewed as partisan for FPIC.”

Facebook and Twitter

We are actively using two social networking websites to reach out more often and even interact with and engage our readers, friends and colleagues in the various areas of interest that I tackle in my column. Please like us at www.facebook.com and follow us at www.twitter.com/ReyGamboa.

Should you wish to share any insights, write me at Link Edge, 25th Floor, 139 Corporate Center, Valero Street, Salcedo Village, 1227 Makati City. Or e-mail me at [email protected]. For a compilation of previous articles, visit www.BizlinksPhilippines.net.