Ballot Comments and DPM Responses Date*: 03/22/22 Voter Name*: Michiel Brongers SC*: 15 Document*: SP0313 ballot

Voter Name*: Michiel Brongers SC*: 15 Document*: SP0313 ballot draft

Section Paragrap Line Figure/Table Type of Comment/Supporting Rationale (See SCOM Proposed Change (See SCOM para 6.3.2.4) * DPM Response and
(e.g., h(e.g., 3.1) Number (e.g., Table 1) Comment*(1) para 6.3.2.4) * Rationale
Foreword, (e.g., 17)
References)

Section 4 4.2 Line 2 te Sentence does not make sense with word Replace “included” with “recorded” Agree. Changed to
“included”. “recorded”.
Section 5 5.2.1.3 Lines 5, te The SP should not specify what assessment Delete “For corrosion, pressure calculations Agree. Deleted as
6, 7, 8 method(s) to use. should be performed using ASME B31G,10 suggested.
RSTRENG,11 or other assessment algorithm
The SP should limit itself to detection and appropriate for the detail of GWT data available.
sizing of features, not assessment of feature For dents and dent-like anomalies, codes normally
severity. indicate any anomalies that exceed a certain
threshold must be removed.”
Delete: “as they relate to these criteria”
Section 5 5.3.1 Lines 5, te The SP should not specify what the data is Either replace “should then be utilized for” with Agree. Deleted sentence
6 to be used for. “may then be used for”, or delete the sentence in in its entirety.
its entirety: “This corrosion profile information
collected should then be utilized for (a) defect
assessment by an engineering code to determine
acceptability, and (b) compared with the ILI (in-line
inspection) tool information as verification of
analysis when available.”
Section 5 Table 3 te The SP should not specify what assessment Delete Table 3. I agree but reluctant to
method(s) to use, let alone specify the delete it. The table is only
responses to be taken after an assessment. an example and is titled as
such. Therefore, left in at
this time.
Section 5 5.6.1 Line 1 te The SP should not specify what responses Replace “shall” with “may”. Agree. Replaced “shall”
are required. with “may”. Deleted as
Providing an example in Appendix A is okay. suggested and deleted
Delete “A response is not required if validation and Appendix A.
remediation techniques are utilized.”
Delete “Actions are not required if mitigation
technologies are used to stabilize threats.”
Section 5 5.7 Line 1 te The SP should not specify which standard is Replace “The determination of the maximum Agree. Changed to “The
to be used to set a maximum reassessment reassessment intervals will be in accordance with GWT data may be used to
intervals. Table 3 in ASME B31.8S” with “The GWT data establish a reassessment
may be used to establish a reassessment interval.”

* = Mandatory Field
(1) Type of comment: te = technical ed = editorial
page 1 of 3
AMPP Ballot Comment Form (May 2020)
Ballot Comments and DPM Responses Date*: 03/22/22 Voter Name*: Michiel Brongers SC*: 15 Document*: SP0313 ballot draft

Section Paragrap Line Figure/Table Type of Comment/Supporting Rationale (See SCOM Proposed Change (See SCOM para 6.3.2.4) * DPM Response and
(e.g., h(e.g., 3.1) Number (e.g., Table 1) Comment*(1) para 6.3.2.4) * Rationale
Foreword, (e.g., 17)
References)

interval.”
Section 7 7.4 te The SP should not include estimated Delete bullet “Data used to estimate corrosion Agree. Bullet deleted.
corrosion growth rates growth rates and analyses, if any;“
Section 7 7.5 te The SP should not include Interpretations Delete Section 7.5, with the exception of moving Agree. This section is
and/or Decisions beyond detection and bullet “Data from periodic assessments” to Section deleted..
sizing of features. 7.2.
Delete bullet “Remaining life calculations results“
Delete bullet “Remaining flaw size estimations”
Delete bullet “Corrosion growth rate estimates”
Delete bullet “Method of estimating remaining life”
Delete bullet “Results” (that’s covered in Section
7.4)
Delete bullet ”Planned mitigation activities”
Delete bullet “Reassessment intervals and
scheduled activities”, if any”
Delete text “and results from assessments”
Delete bullet “Other criteria and metrics”
Delete bullet “Assessment of criteria used in each
step of the external corrosion direct assessment
(ECDA) process; and”
Delete bullet “Modifications of criteria”
Table 1 te In column “Percentage (dB)”, the Review wording and evaluate if values and signs The way dB is used in this
relationship between % and dB appears are correct. table is correct. It
non-intuitive. One goes up and the other expresses a relative
goes down. Also, why is there a negative amplitude with respect to a
sign before dB and no negative sign before reference amplitude. For
%? example, if 100% of the
guided wave is reflected,
Perhaps improved text could it be as then the dB would be 1. If
follows? only 10% is reflected, that
is -20dB. It is a logarithmic
* = Mandatory Field
(1) Type of comment: te = technical ed = editorial
page 2 of 3
AMPP Ballot Comment Form (May 2020)
Ballot Comments and DPM Responses Date*: 03/22/22 Voter Name*: Michiel Brongers SC*: 15 Document*: SP0313 ballot draft

Section Paragrap Line Figure/Table Type of Comment/Supporting Rationale (See SCOM Proposed Change (See SCOM para 6.3.2.4) * DPM Response and
(e.g., h(e.g., 3.1) Number (e.g., Table 1) Comment*(1) para 6.3.2.4) * Rationale
Foreword, (e.g., 17)
References)

Reflection from 20% thickness increase at scale.

weld: +20% (+ … dB)
I have included a definition
Reflection from 10% wall thickness of Decibel (dB) to help.
decrease in cross-sectional area (CSA): -
10% (- … dB)
Maximum acceptable background noise for
detection of 5% CSA discontinuity: +/- 2.5%
(+/- … dB)
Section 5 5.6 Line 3 ed Section 12 is part of Appendix A (not Replace “Section 12, and Appendix A” with Deleted Appendix A.
separate) “Appendix A Section 12”
Figure 2 ed Cannot easily read Increase resolution of text in the figure. I agree it is very small but it
is inserted as an overall
object so I can’t adjust the
font sizes.

* = Mandatory Field
(1) Type of comment: te = technical ed = editorial
page 3 of 3
AMPP Ballot Comment Form (May 2020)