Safe Access and Lighting on Board Vessels and in Terminals
IFIA Member Companies wish to make known their position with regard to safe access. Our field personnel perform tasks in Refineries, Terminals, and on board Marine Vessels and we regard the safety of our personnel to be our highest priority.
Clear guidelines have been established by regulations and by good practice for the provision of safe access in the workplace and specifically to vessels and barges.
Safe access to vessels is defined as either a gangway, properly trimmed and in good repair, a straight ladder in good repair that, if portable, extends at least three feet above the landing point, or a Pilot’s ladder in good repair that has been rigged to hang without slack from its lashings. A number of publications from around the world contain requirements for access to vessels (SOLAS, ISM, ISGOTT, U.K. Statutory Instrument 1988 No. 1637, US 29 CFR Part 1918.21 through 1918.26). These documents all make essentially the same point about vessel access; personnel must be able to board and disembark without risking injury in the course of their duties.
In addition, minimum lighting requirements for the hours of darkness are defined by ISGOTT and some of the other organizations noted above. These requirements should be applied to all areas where our personnel are required to work.
Our personnel are encouraged to report any unsafe situations to vessel/installation representatives and it is the IFIA members’ position that any risks identified must be either corrected or an alternate safe solution must be sought and implemented before work can proceed. The following list provides basic safety check items for access to typical work locations.
We recommend that our personnel be escorted by facility staff at all times during field operations. At a minimum our personnel should report in and out with facility staff at each operating area.
Location
Safety Check Items
1. Adequate lighting must be provided between sunset and sunrise
All Areas
2. Slip hazards due to product spillage or bad weather should be removed/avoided
1. Confined space risks should be assessed and avoided
2. Roof should be in good condition (no damaged / weak areas)
3. Guardrails should be present and in good condition
4. Walk / slip hazards to adjoining tanks should be removed or avoided
Shore Tank Roofs
5. Checks must be made for pressure build up before sampling / gauging
1. Equipment must be in good condition
2. Proper tie off points must be provided for fall protection if there are no railings
3. Physical obstructions preventing / restricting access must be removed
Gangways / Boarding Ladders
4. Handrails must be in good condition
1. Steps must be in good condition
2. Steps must be of equal height
3. Physical obstructions preventing / restricting access must be removed
Stairways
4. Handrails must be present and in good condition
1. Jacob’s ladders should not be used
2. Pilot ladders must be in good condition
2. Proper tie off points must be provided
Lighterings – Harbor / Offshore
4. Transfers should not take place during bad weather conditions or heavy seas
Technical Bulletin 06-05 International Federation of Inspection Agencies
Petroleum and Petrochemical Committee
Location
Safety Check Items
1. Walkways must be provided where required
2. Ladders may not be used as walkways
Barges
3. Planks/scaffold boards may not be utilized as walkways
1. Physical obstructions preventing / restricting access should be removed
Docks/Wharfs
2. Falling objects – hazardous locations should be avoided
1. Blue flag requirements should be in operation
2. Ladders must be in good condition
3. Dome/hatch/valve operation
Railcars
4. Guide rails must be in good condition
1. Wheels must be chocked
2. Ladders must be in good condition
3. Dome/hatch/valve operation
4. Guide rails must be in good condition
Tank Truck / ISO Containers
5. Gantry access to be provided and used wherever possible
1. Physical obstructions preventing / restricting access should be removed
2. Excessive water/mud hazards around tanks should be avoided
3. Dedicated walkways must be used and should be in good condition
4. Moving vehicles – awareness - hazardous locations should be avoided
Tank Farms
5. Falling objects – awareness - hazardous locations should be avoided
Reference Information:
1. SOLAS (Safety of Life at Sea), ISM (International safety management), ISGOTT (International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals.
2. IFIA (International Federation of Inspection Agencies) Guidelines - section 2.5 Health and safety Regulations
3. OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) Regulations
4. Reference should also be made to any local or national regulations which may apply in the region concerned.
BUILDING SHIPS
SHIPYARD AT EUROPE
Sunday, August 15, 2010
SAMPLING UNDER RESTRICTED OR CLOSED CONDITIONS
International standards recommend that a number of samples are required to prepare a “representative”
sample suitable for the determination of quality. Current API standards recommend Flow Proportional Inline
sampling equipment as the preferred method for obtaining samples. However, such equipment is
not widely available at the majority of locations and most samples are drawn manually from vessels and
shore tanks.
As more environmental and safety regulations are introduced, the ability to draw samples through open
tank lids is being prevented, resulting in samples being drawn through vapour lock systems. This
requires specialised equipment which can restrict the types of sample that may be drawn and may not
allow samples to be drawn in accordance with current manual sampling standards.
Gauging and sampling under restricted or closed conditions is to be the subject of a new API/EI (IP)
standard, which should be published in 2008. Development of equipment is ongoing and some already
exists which can be effective but is subject to operational constraints.
The problems experienced by our members in working with this equipment are already impacting on
operations, particularly where the cargo is non-homogeneous, or is of variable quality and/or viscosity,
such as residual fuels. Some of the more commonly experienced problems are:
1. Significant additional time is required for sampling, particularly of ships’ tanks, to allow repeated
fitting, operation and removal of the equipment.
2. The diameter of most vapour lock systems dictates that samples can only be of a limited
volume, normally less than 400 ml.
3. The design of most sample containers is such that the level of the sample inside the container
cannot be determined. This limits the ability to draw “All Level” or “Running” samples in
accordance with the standards.
4. The design of the equipment often allows only zone or spot sampling. Additionally, most
systems are limited to one sample container which must be used repeatedly, leading to potential
contamination during the sampling process.
5. The cleanliness of the vapour lock system is usually unknown and it cannot be cleaned while in
use. This can result in contamination of the sample.
6. Though the majority of restricted or closed equipment originates from two manufacturers, the
absence of an international standard regarding the type of vapour lock fitting has resulted in
many different types and sizes in operation on vessels, sometimes preventing the use of the
inspection company’s own equipment. Where vessel equipment has to be used it may not be
clean or in a serviceable condition.
sample suitable for the determination of quality. Current API standards recommend Flow Proportional Inline
sampling equipment as the preferred method for obtaining samples. However, such equipment is
not widely available at the majority of locations and most samples are drawn manually from vessels and
shore tanks.
As more environmental and safety regulations are introduced, the ability to draw samples through open
tank lids is being prevented, resulting in samples being drawn through vapour lock systems. This
requires specialised equipment which can restrict the types of sample that may be drawn and may not
allow samples to be drawn in accordance with current manual sampling standards.
Gauging and sampling under restricted or closed conditions is to be the subject of a new API/EI (IP)
standard, which should be published in 2008. Development of equipment is ongoing and some already
exists which can be effective but is subject to operational constraints.
The problems experienced by our members in working with this equipment are already impacting on
operations, particularly where the cargo is non-homogeneous, or is of variable quality and/or viscosity,
such as residual fuels. Some of the more commonly experienced problems are:
1. Significant additional time is required for sampling, particularly of ships’ tanks, to allow repeated
fitting, operation and removal of the equipment.
2. The diameter of most vapour lock systems dictates that samples can only be of a limited
volume, normally less than 400 ml.
3. The design of most sample containers is such that the level of the sample inside the container
cannot be determined. This limits the ability to draw “All Level” or “Running” samples in
accordance with the standards.
4. The design of the equipment often allows only zone or spot sampling. Additionally, most
systems are limited to one sample container which must be used repeatedly, leading to potential
contamination during the sampling process.
5. The cleanliness of the vapour lock system is usually unknown and it cannot be cleaned while in
use. This can result in contamination of the sample.
6. Though the majority of restricted or closed equipment originates from two manufacturers, the
absence of an international standard regarding the type of vapour lock fitting has resulted in
many different types and sizes in operation on vessels, sometimes preventing the use of the
inspection company’s own equipment. Where vessel equipment has to be used it may not be
clean or in a serviceable condition.
UIA PARA LA PRESENCIA DE ANALISIS EN LABORATORIOS DE TERCERA PARTES
TEST OBSERVATION AT THIRD PARTY LABORATORIES
(Previously “Witnessing of Analysis”)
IFIA Guidelines recommend that Member Companies carry out testing in their own laboratories. An IFIA member company that draws samples and conducts its own laboratory analysis can be certain of the provenance of the samples tested and can vouch for the analysis results. When engaged only to do Test Observation, however, an inspection company:
• Cannot guarantee the origin of samples they did not participate in drawing,
• Cannot guarantee that when samples are split to allow multiple tests to be conducted on sub-samples at different testing stations, such samples are tested without alteration,
• Cannot observe multiple tests being conducted at multiple test stations at the same time,
• Cannot vouch for the accuracy, calibration and maintenance of testing equipment that it does not own and operate, and
• May not, at every location, ordinarily engage an observer with qualifications sufficient to judge whether the laboratory techniques employed for specific tests are appropriate and properly executed.
Where Members are contracted to observe tests carried out by designated third party laboratories this is on the basis that the Member bears no responsibility for the accuracy of the results but simply that a suitable representative (an inspector or laboratory technician) will attend during the testing and ascertain by observation that in his/her opinion the tests were carried out on the correct sample.
Recent discussions have been held with client organisations in order to reinforce the above position, particularly with regard to responsibility. The position has not changed but the following outline scope of work has been suggested to form the basis of a service that will provide some additional value for the client while at the same time avoiding unreasonable responsibilities for the Member.
Check the test slate. •
•
•
•
Enquire whether the designated laboratory can perform the required tests. If not, advise the client, possibly suggesting that some tests are performed at the Member’s laboratory.
Prepare a Check List for the agreed test slate.
This should be a simple sheet listing the tests to be carried out with results to be noted for each test.
If agreed, draw samples, deliver to the laboratory and observe compositing.
Where samples are from an auto-sampler available performance data should be noted in accordance with normal procedures. Where samples are ‘supplied’ this should be clearly noted.
Confirm that the correct sample is used for each test.
Alternatively state that this cannot be confirmed, eg not present, missing seal, etc.
Page 1 of 2
Obtain copies of result print outs where available. •
•
•
•
Report/record whether results are within or outside the agreed specification, if available.
Countersign the Test Report issued by the designated laboratory adding a suitable disclaimer, eg ‘Observed Only and without Responsibility for Results’. A similar disclaimer should be included on the Check List.
Attach the Observation Report and completed Check List to the designated laboratory’s Test Report. Results are to be issued only on the designated laboratory paperwork and NOT transcribed on to Member Company letterhead. The Member Company should never represent as its own, results from tests conducted by others or tests carried out on samples of unknown or uncertain provenance.
This bulletin is for information and guidance and addresses the limitations upon the process of Test Observation and the risks inherent in relying upon it. IFIA strongly recommends that attention is given to comments regarding responsibility for analyses and disclaimers and, particularly recommends that third party results, whether observed or not, should be reported only on the document prepared by the designated laboratory and must NOT be transcribed.
Parties to Letter of Credit transactions where an independent Certificate of Analysis is required ordinarily should not expect to receive such a certificate based solely upon Test Observation. Attention is drawn to the IFIA Technical Bulletin relating to Letters of Credit, TB 06-02.
If an IFIA Member is contracted to observe testing in a third-party (e.g. terminal) laboratory, which is operated by that same IFIA Member, the IFIA Member Company will advise the Principal immediately of the situation.
Note: 'Test Report' in this bulletin refers to any document issued by a third party laboratory containing test results. Such documents may also be referred to as Laboratory Reports, Certificates of Quality, Certificates of Analysis etc., depending on the location.
(Previously “Witnessing of Analysis”)
IFIA Guidelines recommend that Member Companies carry out testing in their own laboratories. An IFIA member company that draws samples and conducts its own laboratory analysis can be certain of the provenance of the samples tested and can vouch for the analysis results. When engaged only to do Test Observation, however, an inspection company:
• Cannot guarantee the origin of samples they did not participate in drawing,
• Cannot guarantee that when samples are split to allow multiple tests to be conducted on sub-samples at different testing stations, such samples are tested without alteration,
• Cannot observe multiple tests being conducted at multiple test stations at the same time,
• Cannot vouch for the accuracy, calibration and maintenance of testing equipment that it does not own and operate, and
• May not, at every location, ordinarily engage an observer with qualifications sufficient to judge whether the laboratory techniques employed for specific tests are appropriate and properly executed.
Where Members are contracted to observe tests carried out by designated third party laboratories this is on the basis that the Member bears no responsibility for the accuracy of the results but simply that a suitable representative (an inspector or laboratory technician) will attend during the testing and ascertain by observation that in his/her opinion the tests were carried out on the correct sample.
Recent discussions have been held with client organisations in order to reinforce the above position, particularly with regard to responsibility. The position has not changed but the following outline scope of work has been suggested to form the basis of a service that will provide some additional value for the client while at the same time avoiding unreasonable responsibilities for the Member.
Check the test slate. •
•
•
•
Enquire whether the designated laboratory can perform the required tests. If not, advise the client, possibly suggesting that some tests are performed at the Member’s laboratory.
Prepare a Check List for the agreed test slate.
This should be a simple sheet listing the tests to be carried out with results to be noted for each test.
If agreed, draw samples, deliver to the laboratory and observe compositing.
Where samples are from an auto-sampler available performance data should be noted in accordance with normal procedures. Where samples are ‘supplied’ this should be clearly noted.
Confirm that the correct sample is used for each test.
Alternatively state that this cannot be confirmed, eg not present, missing seal, etc.
Page 1 of 2
Obtain copies of result print outs where available. •
•
•
•
Report/record whether results are within or outside the agreed specification, if available.
Countersign the Test Report issued by the designated laboratory adding a suitable disclaimer, eg ‘Observed Only and without Responsibility for Results’. A similar disclaimer should be included on the Check List.
Attach the Observation Report and completed Check List to the designated laboratory’s Test Report. Results are to be issued only on the designated laboratory paperwork and NOT transcribed on to Member Company letterhead. The Member Company should never represent as its own, results from tests conducted by others or tests carried out on samples of unknown or uncertain provenance.
This bulletin is for information and guidance and addresses the limitations upon the process of Test Observation and the risks inherent in relying upon it. IFIA strongly recommends that attention is given to comments regarding responsibility for analyses and disclaimers and, particularly recommends that third party results, whether observed or not, should be reported only on the document prepared by the designated laboratory and must NOT be transcribed.
Parties to Letter of Credit transactions where an independent Certificate of Analysis is required ordinarily should not expect to receive such a certificate based solely upon Test Observation. Attention is drawn to the IFIA Technical Bulletin relating to Letters of Credit, TB 06-02.
If an IFIA Member is contracted to observe testing in a third-party (e.g. terminal) laboratory, which is operated by that same IFIA Member, the IFIA Member Company will advise the Principal immediately of the situation.
Note: 'Test Report' in this bulletin refers to any document issued by a third party laboratory containing test results. Such documents may also be referred to as Laboratory Reports, Certificates of Quality, Certificates of Analysis etc., depending on the location.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
FREE WATER MEASUMENTS
Petroleum and Petrochemical Bulletin
The member companies of the International Federation of Inspection Agencies wish to clarify their
position regarding the determination of the amount of free water in an oil cargo.
Increasingly, IFIA member companies are receiving instructions from clients (or their loss control
representatives) specifying the water determination method to be used, electronic or manual, and their
preferences for the type and brand of water finding paste. Often, these preferences are unilaterally
stated, without the agreement of all concerned parties.
There are many types of water finding paste on the market and no standards organization has
designated “approved” water pastes. The inspection company is therefore required to select the most
appropriate paste to be used based upon the following considerations from existing API standards;
1. API MPMS Chapter 3.1A Tank Gauging, Section 10.1.5 - There are many brands of
water indicating pastes available that change color on contact with free water. It has been
found that, although all pastes react to free water, they may differ. This difference is
caused by the adhesion of the oil to the paste, which causes some pastes to give low or
spotted readings.
2. API MPMS Chapter 3.1A Tank Gauging, Section 10.1.6 - The following qualities
should be known before using water pastes, since there are differences between brands:
a. Clarity of color change.
b. Ability to “shed” oil in which the paste is used.
c. Shelf life (some tend to harden shortly after opening).
d. Ease of application to the bar and ability to “grip” the bar.
e. Dense enough not to scrub off during the trip through oil.
f. Effectiveness equally in slightly alkaline, salt, fresh, or acidic water.
3. API MPMS Chapter 3.1A Tank Gauging, Section 10.1.7 - It is recommended that at all
locations the gauger apply two different pastes on the bar for each innage gauge at the
beginning of gauging.
After it has been established which paste works best for the given product, the other can
be discontinued.
FREE WATER DETERMINATION
Bulletin 09-01
Rev. 0
Page 2 of 2
4. API MPMS Chapter 17.2 Marine Measurement, Section 5.2.2.3 - Vessel tanks should
be gauged for free water using water indicating paste or other equipment agreed upon by
the parties involved.
5. API MPMS Chapter 17.2 Marine Measurement, Section 5.2.2.3.1 - Note 2: It is
recommended that two different pastes be applied on the bar for each free water innage
gauge at the beginning of gauging. After it has been established which paste yields the
highest, continuous clear water cut, the other can be discontinued.
It is the position of IFIA member companies that when nomination instructions received from clients
contain instructions as to the free water method, and/or water finding paste, that is to be used the
member company will, where possible, obtain confirmation from other concerned parties to the
nomination. If this cannot be achieved, the member company will be obliged to proceed in strict
accordance with the standards quoted above, under the conditions of a) and b) below.
a) Where the manual method is used, on the first tank gauged two different pastes will be added to the
bob (or probe). In the absence of agreement of all parties, the selection of the brand of paste will be
made by the member company’s representative.
b) The highest continuous clear water cut obtained, be it by either of the two pastes, or steady
interface indication from the electronic device, will be used as the indicator of the oil/ water interface
level.
The member companies of the International Federation of Inspection Agencies wish to clarify their
position regarding the determination of the amount of free water in an oil cargo.
Increasingly, IFIA member companies are receiving instructions from clients (or their loss control
representatives) specifying the water determination method to be used, electronic or manual, and their
preferences for the type and brand of water finding paste. Often, these preferences are unilaterally
stated, without the agreement of all concerned parties.
There are many types of water finding paste on the market and no standards organization has
designated “approved” water pastes. The inspection company is therefore required to select the most
appropriate paste to be used based upon the following considerations from existing API standards;
1. API MPMS Chapter 3.1A Tank Gauging, Section 10.1.5 - There are many brands of
water indicating pastes available that change color on contact with free water. It has been
found that, although all pastes react to free water, they may differ. This difference is
caused by the adhesion of the oil to the paste, which causes some pastes to give low or
spotted readings.
2. API MPMS Chapter 3.1A Tank Gauging, Section 10.1.6 - The following qualities
should be known before using water pastes, since there are differences between brands:
a. Clarity of color change.
b. Ability to “shed” oil in which the paste is used.
c. Shelf life (some tend to harden shortly after opening).
d. Ease of application to the bar and ability to “grip” the bar.
e. Dense enough not to scrub off during the trip through oil.
f. Effectiveness equally in slightly alkaline, salt, fresh, or acidic water.
3. API MPMS Chapter 3.1A Tank Gauging, Section 10.1.7 - It is recommended that at all
locations the gauger apply two different pastes on the bar for each innage gauge at the
beginning of gauging.
After it has been established which paste works best for the given product, the other can
be discontinued.
FREE WATER DETERMINATION
Bulletin 09-01
Rev. 0
Page 2 of 2
4. API MPMS Chapter 17.2 Marine Measurement, Section 5.2.2.3 - Vessel tanks should
be gauged for free water using water indicating paste or other equipment agreed upon by
the parties involved.
5. API MPMS Chapter 17.2 Marine Measurement, Section 5.2.2.3.1 - Note 2: It is
recommended that two different pastes be applied on the bar for each free water innage
gauge at the beginning of gauging. After it has been established which paste yields the
highest, continuous clear water cut, the other can be discontinued.
It is the position of IFIA member companies that when nomination instructions received from clients
contain instructions as to the free water method, and/or water finding paste, that is to be used the
member company will, where possible, obtain confirmation from other concerned parties to the
nomination. If this cannot be achieved, the member company will be obliged to proceed in strict
accordance with the standards quoted above, under the conditions of a) and b) below.
a) Where the manual method is used, on the first tank gauged two different pastes will be added to the
bob (or probe). In the absence of agreement of all parties, the selection of the brand of paste will be
made by the member company’s representative.
b) The highest continuous clear water cut obtained, be it by either of the two pastes, or steady
interface indication from the electronic device, will be used as the indicator of the oil/ water interface
level.
VESSEL'S EXPERIENCE FACTORS
Petroleum and Petrochemical Bulletin
The purpose of this bulletin is to clarify the position of IFIA member companies regarding the use and
application of VEFs (Vessel Experience Factors).
IFIA member companies are frequently asked to apply VEFs to vessel figures for the purpose of
Custody Transfer where measurements determined by shore tank or meter are not available.
Following the first issue of this bulletin in March 2002 the new standard, API MPMS Chapter 17.9/EI
HM 49 Vessel Experience Factor (VEF) was issued in November 2005, “the Standard”. Appendix C in
API MPMS Chapter 17.1 was withdrawn in March 2008.
The VEF is primarily a loss control tool to help assess the validity of quantities derived from shore side
(tanks, meters, etc.), off-shore installations or from other vessels. It should be recognized that
quantities derived using vessel figures and the VEF will never have the measurement rigor of those
from traditional static shore tank or meter measurements. For these reasons the Standard states that
VEF adjusted vessel figures may be used for custody transfer where traditional measurements are
either "not available, or are known to be inadequate". Although not well defined, "known to be
inadequate" implies a general acceptance by all parties that due to poor design or obvious malfunction
a shore tank or meter measurement cannot be relied upon.
While in many situations when traditional measurements are questioned, a VEF adjusted vessel
quantity may be the only available alternate measurement, the lack of statistics for precision and
uncertainty cannot be overcome. Therefore, in these situations, it should not be automatically
assumed that VEF adjusted vessel figures will provide any greater accuracy than the traditional
measurements which they might replace.
Limitations of the Vessel Experience Factor
There are a number of factors which limit the overall accuracy of quantity calculations based on
application of a VEF to vessel measurements. These factors are recognized in the Standard but a
number of issues remain:
• The voyage data used to compile a VEF must, by necessity, come from information supplied
by the vessel. The inspector is rarely able to verify the accuracy of this data.
• Most vessels only maintain records of load port data. Therefore, most vessel experience
factors are load port experience factors (VEFL), even though they are frequently applied to
discharge measurements. The Standard requires that data necessary for calculation of both
load and discharge VEFs should be maintained by vessels. As vessels are commonly not
aware of the shore outturn this data is not normally available. Data and information may be
available from other reliable sources but not necessarily in sequential order.
• Barge towing companies often do not maintain load or discharge records. Data may be
available from other reliable sources, and which would include inspection companies and/or oil
companies, but, again, not necessarily in sequential order.
VESSEL EXPERIENCE FACTORS
Bulletin 02-01
Rev. 1
Page 2 of 2
• There is considerable debate about whether VEFs calculated from “full” cargoes should be
applied to part cargoes. The Standard allows for development of partial VEFs for “a specific
set of compartments, or amount less than 75% of a vessel capacity”. However, this requires
regular operation of the vessel in the same condition and it is extremely rare for there to be
sufficient data to compile a partial VEF. The Standard states “if data to determine a partial
cargo VEF is not available it is recommended to apply the full cargo VEF to each partial
cargo”. Although the recommendation is clear the application of VEFs to part cargoes remains
a contentious issue.
As a consequence of the known limitations, the use of vessels figures adjusted by VEF to determine a
Custody Transfer quantity (Bill of Lading or Outturn) is a commercial decision and can only be made
with the agreement of the interested parties. This is clearly noted in the Standard. However it should
be recognized that some regulatory authorities impose the use of a “correction” factor to vessel
measurements that is not in keeping with the Standard and outside the control of inspection
companies and their principals.
Application of the Vessel Experience Factor
Noting the above, it is recommended that IFIA member companies should calculate Custody Transfer
figures by applying a VEF to vessel measurements as follows:
• In accordance with the Standard, vessel experience factors will be applied for purposes of
determining Custody Transfer quantities only “when agreed by interested parties”.
• A full-vessel VEF will only be used for partial cargoes, as recommended in the Standard,
where i) a partial VEF is not available or ii) the interested parties instruct that a full-vessel
VEF is to be applied.
• When data to determine a discharge VEF (VEFD) in accordance with the Standard is not
available the Standard states that “a VEFL may be used”. However, in these circumstances,
IFIA member companies may, with agreement of all interested parties, use data from other
reliable sources to calculate a discharge VEF. Such data may not be sequential.
• Where no agreement is obtained from interested parties with regard to application of a VEF for
purposes of determining a Custody Transfer quantity, IFIA member companies should issue
vessel figures with no factor applied.
The purpose of this bulletin is to clarify the position of IFIA member companies regarding the use and
application of VEFs (Vessel Experience Factors).
IFIA member companies are frequently asked to apply VEFs to vessel figures for the purpose of
Custody Transfer where measurements determined by shore tank or meter are not available.
Following the first issue of this bulletin in March 2002 the new standard, API MPMS Chapter 17.9/EI
HM 49 Vessel Experience Factor (VEF) was issued in November 2005, “the Standard”. Appendix C in
API MPMS Chapter 17.1 was withdrawn in March 2008.
The VEF is primarily a loss control tool to help assess the validity of quantities derived from shore side
(tanks, meters, etc.), off-shore installations or from other vessels. It should be recognized that
quantities derived using vessel figures and the VEF will never have the measurement rigor of those
from traditional static shore tank or meter measurements. For these reasons the Standard states that
VEF adjusted vessel figures may be used for custody transfer where traditional measurements are
either "not available, or are known to be inadequate". Although not well defined, "known to be
inadequate" implies a general acceptance by all parties that due to poor design or obvious malfunction
a shore tank or meter measurement cannot be relied upon.
While in many situations when traditional measurements are questioned, a VEF adjusted vessel
quantity may be the only available alternate measurement, the lack of statistics for precision and
uncertainty cannot be overcome. Therefore, in these situations, it should not be automatically
assumed that VEF adjusted vessel figures will provide any greater accuracy than the traditional
measurements which they might replace.
Limitations of the Vessel Experience Factor
There are a number of factors which limit the overall accuracy of quantity calculations based on
application of a VEF to vessel measurements. These factors are recognized in the Standard but a
number of issues remain:
• The voyage data used to compile a VEF must, by necessity, come from information supplied
by the vessel. The inspector is rarely able to verify the accuracy of this data.
• Most vessels only maintain records of load port data. Therefore, most vessel experience
factors are load port experience factors (VEFL), even though they are frequently applied to
discharge measurements. The Standard requires that data necessary for calculation of both
load and discharge VEFs should be maintained by vessels. As vessels are commonly not
aware of the shore outturn this data is not normally available. Data and information may be
available from other reliable sources but not necessarily in sequential order.
• Barge towing companies often do not maintain load or discharge records. Data may be
available from other reliable sources, and which would include inspection companies and/or oil
companies, but, again, not necessarily in sequential order.
VESSEL EXPERIENCE FACTORS
Bulletin 02-01
Rev. 1
Page 2 of 2
• There is considerable debate about whether VEFs calculated from “full” cargoes should be
applied to part cargoes. The Standard allows for development of partial VEFs for “a specific
set of compartments, or amount less than 75% of a vessel capacity”. However, this requires
regular operation of the vessel in the same condition and it is extremely rare for there to be
sufficient data to compile a partial VEF. The Standard states “if data to determine a partial
cargo VEF is not available it is recommended to apply the full cargo VEF to each partial
cargo”. Although the recommendation is clear the application of VEFs to part cargoes remains
a contentious issue.
As a consequence of the known limitations, the use of vessels figures adjusted by VEF to determine a
Custody Transfer quantity (Bill of Lading or Outturn) is a commercial decision and can only be made
with the agreement of the interested parties. This is clearly noted in the Standard. However it should
be recognized that some regulatory authorities impose the use of a “correction” factor to vessel
measurements that is not in keeping with the Standard and outside the control of inspection
companies and their principals.
Application of the Vessel Experience Factor
Noting the above, it is recommended that IFIA member companies should calculate Custody Transfer
figures by applying a VEF to vessel measurements as follows:
• In accordance with the Standard, vessel experience factors will be applied for purposes of
determining Custody Transfer quantities only “when agreed by interested parties”.
• A full-vessel VEF will only be used for partial cargoes, as recommended in the Standard,
where i) a partial VEF is not available or ii) the interested parties instruct that a full-vessel
VEF is to be applied.
• When data to determine a discharge VEF (VEFD) in accordance with the Standard is not
available the Standard states that “a VEFL may be used”. However, in these circumstances,
IFIA member companies may, with agreement of all interested parties, use data from other
reliable sources to calculate a discharge VEF. Such data may not be sequential.
• Where no agreement is obtained from interested parties with regard to application of a VEF for
purposes of determining a Custody Transfer quantity, IFIA member companies should issue
vessel figures with no factor applied.
TANK GAUGING AND SAMPLING THROUGH UNPERFORATED STILL PIPES (STAND PIPES)
Petroleum and Petrochemical Bulletin
The risks and problems associated with the use of un-perforated still pipes for gauging and sampling
are well known within the industry. The use of this apparatus can result in significant measurement
errors and/or samples that subsequently prove to be unrepresentative.
For many years, the use of un-perforated still pipes has not been recommended for custody transfer
measurements due to the possibility of serious errors.
The most recent revision to API MPMS Chapter 3.1A now specifically prohibits the use of unperforated
or un-slotted still pipes for tank gauging. API MPMS Chapter 3.1A, Section 8.2.4 (h) states,
“Tank gauging shall not be carried out from un-perforated or un-slotted still pipes (which are referred
to as “guide poles” or “stand pipes”), since the liquid level measured inside the un-perforated or unslotted
still pipes is usually not the same the liquid level outside the still pipe. Tank gauging shall only
be taken from still pipes that have perforations or slots that allow free flow of liquid into and out the still
pipe. In certain locations, still pipes without slots are used to comply with local air pollution regulations.
These “solid” still pipes can lead to serious liquid height measurement, temperature determination,
and sampling errors.”
Where IFIA members are requested to take measurements or samples from un-perforated still pipes
they should advise their principals immediately and seek instruction. Such measurements and
samples shall not be used for custody transfer or other purposes without the approval of all concerned
parties. Appropriate qualifying statements should be used on any documents or reports where such
measurements or samples are involved.
The risks and problems associated with the use of un-perforated still pipes for gauging and sampling
are well known within the industry. The use of this apparatus can result in significant measurement
errors and/or samples that subsequently prove to be unrepresentative.
For many years, the use of un-perforated still pipes has not been recommended for custody transfer
measurements due to the possibility of serious errors.
The most recent revision to API MPMS Chapter 3.1A now specifically prohibits the use of unperforated
or un-slotted still pipes for tank gauging. API MPMS Chapter 3.1A, Section 8.2.4 (h) states,
“Tank gauging shall not be carried out from un-perforated or un-slotted still pipes (which are referred
to as “guide poles” or “stand pipes”), since the liquid level measured inside the un-perforated or unslotted
still pipes is usually not the same the liquid level outside the still pipe. Tank gauging shall only
be taken from still pipes that have perforations or slots that allow free flow of liquid into and out the still
pipe. In certain locations, still pipes without slots are used to comply with local air pollution regulations.
These “solid” still pipes can lead to serious liquid height measurement, temperature determination,
and sampling errors.”
Where IFIA members are requested to take measurements or samples from un-perforated still pipes
they should advise their principals immediately and seek instruction. Such measurements and
samples shall not be used for custody transfer or other purposes without the approval of all concerned
parties. Appropriate qualifying statements should be used on any documents or reports where such
measurements or samples are involved.
SAFETY OPERATIONS.
Good evening to all my dear colleagues, in this opportunity I'm writing in order to express something that make think and really it is an important matter for all of us who are working on the inspection business, and it is the fact of the resting after operations or the same of being working during prolonged time, during the las weeks I've been experience a extreme number of job's orders for inspection, which at his time had been suction all my free time and rest, shift of more than 20 hrs straight which is affecting my capacity of reaction and at the mean time my social life.
It is really imperative that inspectors mus ask to their supervisors for shift changes no more than 16 hrs of continuous working, studies had realize that when the human been works more than 16 hrs a day it is the equivalent that been drunk, the time of reflects of the body minimize and the coordination is lost, this situation becomes in a danger for ourselves and the peoples who surround us and the safety of the operations.
My recommendation for my colleagues is, ask to the management of the operations to coordinate and schedule with time the necessary shift in order to guarantee 8 hrs of rest as minimum per shift.
Our health and safety is the priority before any job and responsibility, remember we are the main source in our job and making the proper way is doing it with safe.
Best Regards.
Abelardo Eijesser
Oil, gas and Chemical Inspector
Montreal, Quebec.
Canada
It is really imperative that inspectors mus ask to their supervisors for shift changes no more than 16 hrs of continuous working, studies had realize that when the human been works more than 16 hrs a day it is the equivalent that been drunk, the time of reflects of the body minimize and the coordination is lost, this situation becomes in a danger for ourselves and the peoples who surround us and the safety of the operations.
My recommendation for my colleagues is, ask to the management of the operations to coordinate and schedule with time the necessary shift in order to guarantee 8 hrs of rest as minimum per shift.
Our health and safety is the priority before any job and responsibility, remember we are the main source in our job and making the proper way is doing it with safe.
Best Regards.
Abelardo Eijesser
Oil, gas and Chemical Inspector
Montreal, Quebec.
Canada
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
WALL WASHING!!!
THE WALL WASH TEST IS A PROCEDURE FOR WASHING SELECTED AREAS SUCH AS THE INTERIOR BULKHEADS, TANK BOTTOMS WITH AN APPROPRIATE WASH LIQUID; AND; SUBSEQUENTLY TESTING THE WASH A LIQUID FOR THE PRESENCE OF MATERIAL WHICH MIGHT CONTAMINATE THE CARGO TO BE LOADED.
WALL WASH TEST PROCEDURES CAN BE FOUND IN API MPMS CHAPTER 17, SEC 8, GUIDELINES FOR PRE-LOADING INSPECTION OF MARINE VESSEL CARGO TANKS.
EQUIPMENT:
PLASTIC GLOVES (FOR SKIN PROTECTION AND TO PREVENT CHLORIDE CONTAMINATION OF SAMPLE); EXPLOSION PROOF FLASHLIGHT, LABORATORY WASH BOTTLE, WALL WASH FUNNEL, WALL WASH COLLECTION BOTTLES, WITH POLY SEAL CAPS, SMALL, CLEAN PLASTIC BAGS, FOR RUST SAMPLES, SUFFICIENT WASH LIQUID (USUALLY REAGENT GRADE METHANOL), CLEAN WIPING RAGS.
THE MINIMUM AREAS TO BE WASHED ARE DETERMINATE BY THE FOLLOWING:
TANKS <3000 BBLS OR 500 M3 MUST BE MINIMUM 5 HRS; FROM 3000-6300 BBLS (500-1000M3) MINIMUM 7 AREAS AND > 6300 BBLS OR 1000 M3 AM MINIMUM OF SPOT AREAS OF 9 PLACES.
RECOMENDATIONS:
1.-DO NOT PERFORM WALL WASHES ON WET TANKS. REQUEST VESSEL'S PERSONNEL TO DRY TANKS.
2.-EACH WASHED AREA SHOULD BE ABOUT 3 FEET WIDE AND 6 FEET HIGH FROM THE BOTTOM OF EACH TANK. HIGHER AREAS THAT CAN BE SAFELY ACCESSED MAY ALSO BE WASHED.
3.-DISCOLORED PATCHES, TANK COATING BREAKS, OR EXPOSED SECTIONS ALL OTHER NON-TYPICAL AREAS ON THE TANKS WALLS OF TANKS FLOORS MUST BE NOTED ON THE REPORT AND TESTED AS FOLLOWS:
IN ANY AREA WHERE THE NON-TYPICAL AREA IS LESS THAN ABOUT 20% OF THE TOTAL SURFACE OF THE TANK, INCLUDE THE WALL WASHING WITH THOSE FROM THE REST OF THE TANK.
WHEN THE NON-TYPICAL AREA EXCEEDS 20% OF THE TANK SURFACE AREA, KEEP WALL WASHINGS FROM THESE AREAS IN A SEPARATE BOTTLE AND PERFORM SEPARATE ANALYSIS.
TANK BOTTOMS OFTEN DO NOT REQUIRE WASH TESTING. HOWEVER, IF WASH TESTING IS REQUIRED, USE BLOTTER METHOD OR FILTER METHOD.
FUNNEL METHOD:
POT ON PLASTIC GLOVES PRIOR TO STARTING TEST; RINSE WASH BOTTLE, FUNNEL, AND SAMPLE BOTTLE WITH A SMALL AMOUNT OF WASHING LIQUID; PLACE THE SPOUT OF THE FUNNEL INTO THE SAMPLE BOTTLE AND HOLD THE FLAT SIDE OF THE FUNNEL FIRMLY AGAINST THE SURFACE TO BE TESTED (CAUTION: TO AVOID POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION OF SAMPLES WITH SUSPENDED MATTER, CARE MUST BE TAKEN NOT TO SCRAPE ZINC TANK COATINGS WITH THE EDGE OF THE FUNNEL); USING THE WASH BOTTLE, SPRAY A STEADY STREAM OF THE WASHING LIQUID ON THE SURFACE OF THE TANK WALL, ABOUT 3 FEET ABOVE THE FUNNEL, WITH THE WASH BOTTLE HELD ABOUT 18 INCHES AWAY FROM THE WALL. ALLOW THE WASH LIQUID TO RUN DOWN THE WALL INTO DE FUNNEL AND INTO THE SAMPLE BOTTLE; CONTINUE SPRAYING UNTIL ABOUT 50 ML OF WASH LIQUID HAS BEEN USED; REPEAT THE STEPS UNTIL A SUFFICIENT QUANTITY OF WALL WASHING LIQUID HAS BEEN RECEIVED INTO THE SAMPLE BOTTLE FRO THE ENTIRE TANK. SAMPLES MUST ALSO BE TAKEN FROM HORIZONTAL PIPELINES, BAFFLES, DIVIDERS AND SUPERSTRUCTURES, RINSE THE INSIDE OF THE BOTTLE CAP WITH A SMALL AMOUNT OF WASH LIQUID AND PLACED SECURELY ONTO THE BOTTLE; PREPARE A BLANK SAMPLE; TAG EACH WALL WASH SAMPLE AND THE BLANK SAMPLE IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID LOSING THE IDENTITY OF THE SAMPLES; SUBMIT TO THE LAB FOR REQUIRED ANALYSIS; WALL WASH REPORTS SHOULD SPECIFY WHERE EACH WASH SAMPLE WAS TAKEN IN THE TANK.
AND REMEMBER THE MOST PRINCIPAL THING "NEVER ENTER ANY TANK W/O HAVING RECEIVED CONFINED SPACE ENTRY TRAINING.
SEE YOU!!!
WALL WASH TEST PROCEDURES CAN BE FOUND IN API MPMS CHAPTER 17, SEC 8, GUIDELINES FOR PRE-LOADING INSPECTION OF MARINE VESSEL CARGO TANKS.
EQUIPMENT:
PLASTIC GLOVES (FOR SKIN PROTECTION AND TO PREVENT CHLORIDE CONTAMINATION OF SAMPLE); EXPLOSION PROOF FLASHLIGHT, LABORATORY WASH BOTTLE, WALL WASH FUNNEL, WALL WASH COLLECTION BOTTLES, WITH POLY SEAL CAPS, SMALL, CLEAN PLASTIC BAGS, FOR RUST SAMPLES, SUFFICIENT WASH LIQUID (USUALLY REAGENT GRADE METHANOL), CLEAN WIPING RAGS.
THE MINIMUM AREAS TO BE WASHED ARE DETERMINATE BY THE FOLLOWING:
TANKS <3000 BBLS OR 500 M3 MUST BE MINIMUM 5 HRS; FROM 3000-6300 BBLS (500-1000M3) MINIMUM 7 AREAS AND > 6300 BBLS OR 1000 M3 AM MINIMUM OF SPOT AREAS OF 9 PLACES.
RECOMENDATIONS:
1.-DO NOT PERFORM WALL WASHES ON WET TANKS. REQUEST VESSEL'S PERSONNEL TO DRY TANKS.
2.-EACH WASHED AREA SHOULD BE ABOUT 3 FEET WIDE AND 6 FEET HIGH FROM THE BOTTOM OF EACH TANK. HIGHER AREAS THAT CAN BE SAFELY ACCESSED MAY ALSO BE WASHED.
3.-DISCOLORED PATCHES, TANK COATING BREAKS, OR EXPOSED SECTIONS ALL OTHER NON-TYPICAL AREAS ON THE TANKS WALLS OF TANKS FLOORS MUST BE NOTED ON THE REPORT AND TESTED AS FOLLOWS:
IN ANY AREA WHERE THE NON-TYPICAL AREA IS LESS THAN ABOUT 20% OF THE TOTAL SURFACE OF THE TANK, INCLUDE THE WALL WASHING WITH THOSE FROM THE REST OF THE TANK.
WHEN THE NON-TYPICAL AREA EXCEEDS 20% OF THE TANK SURFACE AREA, KEEP WALL WASHINGS FROM THESE AREAS IN A SEPARATE BOTTLE AND PERFORM SEPARATE ANALYSIS.
TANK BOTTOMS OFTEN DO NOT REQUIRE WASH TESTING. HOWEVER, IF WASH TESTING IS REQUIRED, USE BLOTTER METHOD OR FILTER METHOD.
FUNNEL METHOD:
POT ON PLASTIC GLOVES PRIOR TO STARTING TEST; RINSE WASH BOTTLE, FUNNEL, AND SAMPLE BOTTLE WITH A SMALL AMOUNT OF WASHING LIQUID; PLACE THE SPOUT OF THE FUNNEL INTO THE SAMPLE BOTTLE AND HOLD THE FLAT SIDE OF THE FUNNEL FIRMLY AGAINST THE SURFACE TO BE TESTED (CAUTION: TO AVOID POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION OF SAMPLES WITH SUSPENDED MATTER, CARE MUST BE TAKEN NOT TO SCRAPE ZINC TANK COATINGS WITH THE EDGE OF THE FUNNEL); USING THE WASH BOTTLE, SPRAY A STEADY STREAM OF THE WASHING LIQUID ON THE SURFACE OF THE TANK WALL, ABOUT 3 FEET ABOVE THE FUNNEL, WITH THE WASH BOTTLE HELD ABOUT 18 INCHES AWAY FROM THE WALL. ALLOW THE WASH LIQUID TO RUN DOWN THE WALL INTO DE FUNNEL AND INTO THE SAMPLE BOTTLE; CONTINUE SPRAYING UNTIL ABOUT 50 ML OF WASH LIQUID HAS BEEN USED; REPEAT THE STEPS UNTIL A SUFFICIENT QUANTITY OF WALL WASHING LIQUID HAS BEEN RECEIVED INTO THE SAMPLE BOTTLE FRO THE ENTIRE TANK. SAMPLES MUST ALSO BE TAKEN FROM HORIZONTAL PIPELINES, BAFFLES, DIVIDERS AND SUPERSTRUCTURES, RINSE THE INSIDE OF THE BOTTLE CAP WITH A SMALL AMOUNT OF WASH LIQUID AND PLACED SECURELY ONTO THE BOTTLE; PREPARE A BLANK SAMPLE; TAG EACH WALL WASH SAMPLE AND THE BLANK SAMPLE IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID LOSING THE IDENTITY OF THE SAMPLES; SUBMIT TO THE LAB FOR REQUIRED ANALYSIS; WALL WASH REPORTS SHOULD SPECIFY WHERE EACH WASH SAMPLE WAS TAKEN IN THE TANK.
AND REMEMBER THE MOST PRINCIPAL THING "NEVER ENTER ANY TANK W/O HAVING RECEIVED CONFINED SPACE ENTRY TRAINING.
SEE YOU!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)