MAKING THE
CONNECTION:
ENSURING USEFUL
CONTENT AND
CLEAR
COMMUNICATON
This session focuses on writing as critical thinking and
clear communication. It explains how to generate content
that connects with readers by targeting and then addressing
their important questions. It also gives helpful tips for managing
sentences for conciseness and clarity
Harvey Lillywhite, Ph.D. | Director, Quality Communications Group, Inc.
QCGwrite.com | 443 562-2383
2
Module 1 - Ensure Usefulness and Readability
To be persuasive, writing must meet the reader’s needs. When writing does not meet
the reader’s needs, many different communication problems result. These problems
cause writing to be ineffective no matter how strong the analysis is.
Read through the samples provided and consider the following questions:
 Do you find the excerpt easy or difficult to read?
 What aspects of the excerpt make it easy or difficult to
read?
 Is the technical nature of the information a primary source
of difficulty?
Sample 1
The Bureau of Land Management, within the Department of the Interior, and the Forest
Service, within the U.S. Department of Agriculture, manages over 41 million acres of
federal lands in Oregon and Washington, including 122,000 miles of roads that use
culverts—pipes or arches made of concrete or metal—to allow water to flow from one
side of the road to the other. Many of the streams that pass through these culverts are
essential habitat for fish and other aquatic species. When culvert openings are to high
above the streams for fish to jump into or culverts are positioned at a grade too steep
for fish to ascend they poise barriers to fish attempting to access their natural rearing
and spawning habitat. Passage through culverts is particularly important to
anadromous fish, such as Coho and Chinook salmon (some of which are threatened or
endangered), that are spawned in fresh water streams, but which must travel to the
ocean to mature, then travel back to the freshwater streams to spawn. The two
agencies are concerned about the condition of the culverts on fish bearing streams on
their Oregon and Washington lands because many, either because of deterioration or
design, do not provide, as required by current standards, passage for all life stages
(juvenile to adult).
In this context, we determined the number of culverts that may impede fish passage on
Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service lands in Oregon and Washington, the
factors effecting the agencies’ ability to restore passage through culverts acting as
barriers to fish (hereinafter referred to as barrier culverts), and the results of the agencies
efforts to restore fish passage.
Over 10,000 culverts exist on fish bearing streams in Oregon and Washington according
to Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service estimates, but neither agency
knows the total number that impede fish passage. Ongoing agency inventory and
assessment efforts are about halfway completed and have already identified nearly
2,600 barrier culverts, but agency officials estimate that more than twice that number
3
exist. The Forest Service plans to complete its assessment by the end of calendar year
2016. The Bureau of Land Management has not set a specific completion date for
assessing all its culverts, but intends to continue to assessing culverts as part of it’s
ongoing land management planning efforts. According to officials, both agencies
intend to use the assessments to assist them in planning and setting priorities for
elimination of barrier culverts. Based on current assessments, the agencies estimate
that efforts to restore fish passage may ultimately cost over $375 million and take
decades.
Although the agencies’ recognize the importance of restoring fish passage, several
factors are inhibiting the agencies’ efforts. Most significantly, the agencies have not
made sufficient funds available to do all the culvert project work necessary. In
allocating road maintenance funds, the agencies assign a relatively low priority to such
fish passage projects because road safety is a higher priority than resource protection is.
As a result, the agencies allocate most maintenance funding to address their large
road maintenance backlogs rather than to undertake culvert projects. In addition, the
often lengthy process of obtaining federal and state environment clearances and
permits to perform culvert work, as well as the short seasonal “window of opportunity”
to do the work, affect the agencies’ ability to restore fish passage quickly. Furthermore,
the shortage of experienced engineering staff limit the number of projects that the
agencies can design and complete. Currently each barrier project generally takes one
to two years from start to finish.
The Forest Services and the Bureau of Land Management completed 141 culvert
projects from fiscal year 2011 through August 2014 to remove barriers to anadromous
fish and to open an estimated 171 miles of fish habitat. Neither agency, however,
knows the extent to which culvert projects ultimately result in improved fish passage.
Neither agency requires systematic post-project monitoring to measure the outcomes
of their efforts. The agencies say they do not perform post-project monitoring because
of limited funding and staff availability and, according to agency officials, because
they assume culverts built using current standards on lands under their jurisdiction should
allow fish passage. State and local entities using these standards, however, require
systematic post-project monitoring to ensure that they used the most effective methods
for improving fish passage under various conditions. Oregon’s monitoring results, for
example, indicate that retrofitting culverts with devices that slow the flow of water can
effectively restore fish passage. Without monitoring, neither the Forest Service nor the
Bureau of Land Management can ensure that the federal monies expended to
improve fish passage are actually achieving the intended purpose. This report
recommends that both agencies develop guidance for systematically assessing
completed barrier removal projects to determine whether they are improving fish
passage as intended. The agencies agreed with out recommendation for systematic
monitoring.
4
Sample 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) audited the Federal Emergency Management
Administration’s (FEMA) process for evaluating FEMA’s hardware, software, and building
infrastructure equipment to determine whether computers and other equipment will
continue to function properly in the year 2000.
OBJECTIVES
Our objectives were to
(1) determine the current status of FEMA’s efforts;
(2) determine whether the year 2000 Program Management
Plan addresses all critical issues;
(3) evaluate the adequacy of the project management
structure to address potential problems; and
(4) review validation and testing strategies and procedures.
SUMMARY
1) FEMA has made progress in its year 2000 compliance efforts. 2) FEMA developed a
Program Management Plan that provided direction in reviewing the Agency’s year
2000 compliance. The Plan established centralized inventories for systems, CommercialOff-The-Shelf (COTS) software, data exchanges, and network servers. It also included all
critical issues except for building infrastructure equipment. Although not addressed in
the Plan, FEMA established a process for reviewing building infrastructure equipment in
FEMA-owned buildings. 3) FEMA also established a project management structure that
assigns responsibilities for each information system, application software, data
exchange, and network servers, as well as 4) an independent validation process by
which to verify the system administrators’ test results, and a centralized process for
coordinating and preparing year 2000 reports for internal and external distribution.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We found that, while FEMA has made progress in its year 2000 compliance efforts,
action needs to be taken if critical year 2000 issues are to be addressed adequately
and timely. To lessen FEMA’s vulnerability to year 2000 problems that could jeopardize
the Agency’s ability to fulfill its mission at the turn of the century, FEMA needs to ensure
that (1) mission-critical systems are corrected and tested before March 31, 1999, (2)
COTS software and computers are evaluated properly, (3) FEMA building infrastructure
equipment is year 2000-compliant, and (4) adequate plans are developed to address
system contingencies and business continuity.
5
DISCUSSION
FEMA has made progress in addressing year 2000 problems. The Agency developed a
Program Management Plan that provided direction in reviewing compliance of the
Agency’s systems and software. The plan established centralized inventories for
systems, COTS software, data exchanges, and network servers. Although not addressed
in the Program Management Plan, FEMA established a process for reviewing building
infrastructure equipment in FEMA-owned buildings. FEMA also developed a project
management structure that assigns responsibilities for each information system,
application software package, data exchange, and network server. An independent
validation process was used to verify year 2000 compliance. In addition, FEMA set up
centralized process for coordinating and preparing year 2000 reports for internal and
external distribution.
However, FEMA is approximately two months behind OMB’s timetable for renovating
seven of the mission-critical systems. Additionally, four systems, originally reported as
compliant, use software and hardware that need upgrades to become year 2000compliant. We also found that FEMA did not plan to review COTS software packages
reported by system administrators to be mission-critical, or to review a significant
number of computers used to carry out the FEMA mission. In addition, FEMA has not
reviewed its building infrastructure equipment to determine its status in making the
transition to the year 2000.
Finally, the Agency has not made adequate plans for business continuity and for
dealing with contingencies in carrying out the Agency mission if its information systems
and/or building infrastructure equipment should fail on January 1, 2000. FEMA needs to
complete the renovation and testing of its mission-critical systems, software and
hardware, and building infrastructure equipment and adequately plan for
contingencies and business continuity to lesson the Agency’s vulnerability to year 2000
problems that could jeopardize FEMA’s ability to fulfill its mission at the turn of the
century.
HOCs And LOCs
Affect Readability
Seven elements of a text (think of them as systems that work interdependently)
simultaneously affect readers as they read a document. If any element fails to
emphasize the message effectively, the reader will have trouble discovering
intended meaning. It’s most helpful to see the seven elements working together
from Higher Order Concerns (HOCs) to Lower Order Concerns (LOCs), even
though most readers confront the lower order concerns first.


HOCs include content, organization, and format.
LOCs include paragraphs, sentences, word choice, and
mechanics.
6
Seven Elements that Affect Usefulness and Readability
m
CONTENT
e
ORGANIZATION
s
FORMAT
s

PARAGRAPHS
a
SENTENCES
g
WORD CHOICE
e
MECHANICS

Reader
Module 2 – Content Answers Reader’s Questions
Learn to read reports by visualizing all the information presented as a series of answers
to readers’ questions (a simulated conversation), instead of simply as a reservoir of facts
and details. For each section, paragraph, and sentence in the report, be completely
aware of the question the information you’re providing is addressing. Then ask yourself


Is this information addressing the appropriate question at this
point?
Is all the information addressing the same question?
This method of reading is called “question factoring”; this activity can be done at any
level within the document, the whole report, a section, a paragraph, or for a sentence.
Exercise
Read the following document. Instead of simply registering the information presented
as you read, make a list in the margin of the questions each part is answering. Are all
paragraphs and sentences addressing the same question? Are these questions the best
ones to ask at this point?
7
OPS Safety Inspectors Inspection Technology Training
OPS’s 47 safety inspectors conduct inspections of transmissions pipelines to ensure the
pipeline’s integrity and safe operation. In 2008, OPS inspectors conducted 768
inspections as part of a program to conduct inspections of each pipeline unit (pumps,
pipelines, and components) every 2 to 5 years. Each inspector performs roughly 18 unit
inspections per year, which typically average from 2 days to three weeks to perform.
OPS conducts six different types of inspections. A System Integrity Inspection reviews the
entire process of the operator’s program; the inspector acts as a safety consultant to
help the operator ensure pipeline integrity. Compliance Inspections use a checklist to
measure operator compliance with regulations. Risk management Inspections are
limited to inspections of operators participating in the Risk Management Pilot Program.
System-wide Inspections are very comprehensive inspections conducted by an OPS
team every 5 years that review the operator’s entire pipeline safety program. The
Operations and Manuals Inspection focuses on the adequacy and completeness of an
operator’s operations and maintenance manuals used to safely operate a pipeline.
New Construction Inspections are directed to ensure compliance with construction
safety standards.
We found that OPS’s safety inspectors complete a core safety-training program to
conduct inspections. The core requirements include nine courses covering subjects
such as gas pipeline system inspections, corrosion control systems, liquefied natural gas
safety, materials joining, gas pressure regulation and overpressure protection, accident
investigation techniques, regulation and compliance procedures, and hazardous liquid
pipeline system evaluations. However, there are no courses in the program to teach
inspectors about Smart Pig Technology (SPT). Furthermore, OPS does not own or run
smart pigs as part of routine safety inspections. Instead they must rely on summary
reports generated by a vendor for the operator. In fact, the operator is not required to
submit these reports to OPS even when pipeline defects are detected.
According to OPS officials, the agency plans to issue a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
on Pipeline Integrity Management for Hazardous Liquid Operators of Pipelines of 500
miles or More on March 30, 2015. The proposed rule would implement periodic
inspections and the use of SPT to detect defects that can cause pipeline ruptures. The
proposed rulemaking underscores our concern for the need for OPS inspectors to have
the technical expertise to understand and make oversight decisions based on smart pig
information.
8
Module 3: Write Clear, Concise Sentences
Manage Concept Load
Sentences in reports are often too long and pack too much information. Sheer
length can also obscure the basic logic of the sentence. Keep most sentences
under about 30 words. Remember that a short sentence is great for emphasizing an
important point. Long sentences tend to lose focus and emphasis.
One reason sentences shouldn’t be too long is that human short-term memory is
limited. According to George Miller, who researched short-term memory, we can
hold only seven separate bits of information in our minds at once, plus or minus two
(7 +/- 2)
Exercise
After the instructor finishes reading each list, write the items you recall.
List 1 (4 items)
List 2 (7 items)
List 3 (10 items)
1.
2.
3.
4.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Over-modifying the sentence core can take the reader beyond the comfortable
limits of human short-term memory. The following sentence is beyond the “7+/-2”
threshold.
The inclusion in the NASA Performance Plan of fully defined key terms was not
apparent in the performance goals and indicators because it was viewed by
the Office of Space Flight as a high-level, succinct document that did not
require that every key term or number that NASA personnel sufficiently
understood be defined, including success, running average, and the basics
of the 95-percent success rate.
9
Compare the following 60-word sentence to the same information broken into
shorter sentences in the brief paragraph that follows it.
In response to these critical problems, several major laws were passed
between 1986 and 1996 that provided for the initiation of deportation
proceedings for certain criminal aliens while they were incarcerated and for
the expansion of the types of crimes for which aliens could be deported,
while seeking to facilitate the expeditious removal of those aliens found to be
deportable. (60 words)
In response to these critical problems, several major laws were passed
between 1986 and 1996. These laws expanded the types of crimes for which
aliens could be deported and allowed states to initiate deportation hearings
for certain criminal aliens while they were incarcerated. These laws also
made it easier to remove those aliens found to be deportable.
Keep Logical Links Close Together
Keep the subject and verb and complement near each other so readers can more
easily understand the basic logic of the sentence. When more than about ten
words come between subject and verb or between the verb and its complement,
sentences becomes unclear. Compare the following versions of the same
sentence:
The office, with respect to the items tested under the protocols of our
followed all applicable laws, rules, and regulations.
The office substantially followed all applicable laws, rules, and regulations,
except for the conditions commented upon in this report.
Avoid 5 Common Sentence Pitfalls
Sentences in reports often fail to communicate clearly and effectivelybecause of
five common sentence-writing pitfalls. Any one of these pitfalls can create
wordiness. In full combination, they can be deadly. Let’s identify these pitfalls.
There is an immediate need for a thorough review of the program by our trained
staff as soon as possible.
1. ________________________________________
2. ________________________________________
3. ________________________________________
4. ________________________________________
5. ________________________________________
10
Convert Nominalizations Back into Verbs
Exercise
Highlight the nominalizations in the following sentences, then revise.
1. Our expectation was to establish new criteria for the budget program.
2. Attempts were made on the part of the budget team in regards to an
assessment of the budget pressures.
3. There were expectations by the budget committee that its report
submission would meet the required deadline.
4. Discussions of the future of the rebate program by all participants were
conducted productively.
5. Our preference for the initiation of on-site fact-finding is to embark on it as
soon as possible since it will facilitate our determination of the appropriate
action steps for the amelioration of these issues.
6. It is my belief that there should be consultation by the executive staff with
field staff before changes in procedures are made.
7. The rejection of the application by the committee was unexpected.
8. Cutbacks in grant availability for grantees on the part of the endowment
were mandated as a result of the complete lack of success in the
acquisition of any federal funding.
11
Module 4: Reviewing for Usefulness and Readability
When you review your documents, you’ll be more efficient if you consider the HOCs
and LOCs , top to bottom and one element at a time.
Do not try to catch every mistake one time through.
Do not begin editing at the sentence level. Instead, follow the guidelines for
performing an effective structured review. Your review will be more thorough, and
you will review more efficiently.
Before drafting, you might try a “message meeting” to get internal stakeholders on
board with content and logical organization before any serious drafting takes
place. Consider having the writer(s) fill in the following information and using this
information to discuss the proposed article.
PRIMARY AUDIENCE:
MAIN ISSUE (for them):
REPORT GOAL:
REPORT OBJECTIVES:
RESEARCHABLE QUESTIONS:
ANSWERS (outline):
R.I.B. (for each objective):
RECOMMENDATIONS (if any):
The following checklist shows how to do a structured review.
12
Structured Review Checklist
STEP ONE: Review the document for message and content.
 Is the ISSUE clear?
 Are “questions” appropriate and directly answered?
 Is each answer clear and adequately supported?
 Is there unnecessary information in the document?
 Is information fair and objective?
 Are recommendations supported?
STEP TWO: Review the document for effective organization.
 Is the document and each of its sections arranged
deductively?
 Does the document use advance organizers effectively?
 Is the length of the document and each section appropriate?
 Are message-style headings used where appropriate?
STEP THREE: Review the document for effective format.
 Does the document follow the appropriate format type?
 Are all the parts of the document correctly completed?
 Are there adequate and helpful graphics?
 Does the document adhere to typographical standards?
STEP FOUR: Review the document for effective paragraphs.
 Are individual paragraphs too long or too short?
 Are paragraphs created deductively?
 Do paragraphs begin with a topic sentence introducing what
follows?
 Does information in paragraphs relate to the topic sentences?
 Do paragraphs maintain the “known/new” contract for
coherence?
STEP FIVE: Review the document for effective sentences.
 Do all sentences maintain a strong sentence core?
 Are all sentences concise and clearly focused?
 Do the sentences avoid the five sentence pitfalls?
 Do the sentences use active and passive voice
appropriately?
 Are citations properly subordinated?
 Do the sentences project the proper tone?
 Are sentences written in plain English and free of unnecessary
jargon?
STEP SIX:
Review the document for proper mechanics.
 Have you checked spelling with more than a Spell-Check?
 Are all punctuation and grammatical conventions observe?
13
Dear Sir,
Following the Committee of the Whole public oversight hearing last week, I am
concerned that the disability compensation fund is reportedly facing a $3 million
budget pressure in FY 2015. I am writing to request actual spending figures for the
disability compensation fund for FY 2013, and an explanation for the apparent
inconsistency in these spending figures as reported to the Council in March and now in
December, 2014.
In preparing the FY 2015 budget, the Committee on Government Operations provided
$25,936,000 for the disability compensation fund, including a six percent annualized
increase from the FY 2014 budget. The committee's budget proposal was consistent
with the baseline budget and based on actual spending figures submitted to the
Council in March. According to "preliminary" spending figures, the disability
compensation fund spent $25,292,000 in FY 2013, and it was this figure that the
Committee relied upon while developing the budget. Subsequent to the Committee
Budget Analysis and Markup, the Proposed Operating Budget and Financial Plan
submitted to the Congress and the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report stated that
the actual spending figure was $25,291,000, virtually the same as the preliminary figure.
In contrast to the spending information submitted to the Council during the budget
process last spring, Marilyn Monroe has communicated to my staff that the FY 2013
actual spending figures were approximately $28 to $30 million. Ms. Monroe stated that
the $3 million anticipated budget deficit in the disability compensation fund is based on
historical spending patterns. She noted that accounting methods were used that made
it appear that the District spent $25 million in FY 2013, but an additional $3 million was
spent in FY 2013, although it was recorded in FY 2001.
It is my hope that the true spending from the disability compensation fund is consistent
with the $25 million figure reported to the Council, the Congress and the public during
the budget process in the spring. Assuming this figure is accurate, then the FY 2001
budget should be adequate and the $3 million anticipated budget pressure is illusory.
Additionally, while the Council budget did not incorporate projected savings from
disability compensation, the Mayor proposed savings of $10 to $15 million from this
program. These savings have not been factored into the projected budget shortfall.
I would appreciate your response to the apparently conflicting reports of actual
spending from the disability compensation fund in FY 2013, including an analysis of the
$3 million budget pressure for FY 2015. Additionally, please comment on the
appropriateness of accounting methods that record expenditures in years other than
when they were made and explain whether the OCFO continues to track spending in
this manner. Please contact me, or Jane Doe of my staff, at 777-8888 if you have any
questions, and I thank you for your assistance and attention to this matter.
Sincerely, Councilmember Smith
14
Dear Councilmember,
I directed the Agent CFO for the Department of Employment Services to research the
issues raised in your letter regarding FY 2013 expenditures and the FY 2015 spending
pressures for the Disability Compensation Program.
Expenditures for the Disability Compensation Program in FY 2013 and FY 2014 totaled
$25.5 million and $28.7 million respectively. The attached report highlights the budgets
and expenditures for the Disability Compensation Program for FY 2013, FY 2014 and FY
2015.
The $3 million spending pressure for FY 2015 is based on the variance between the
budget and projected expenditures. You will note that in both FY 2013 and FY 2014 the
budgets for Contractual Services to pay medical providers and the budgets for the
compensation payrolls to pay claimants required a reprogramming of funds. The
spending patterns in these object classes have consistently exceeded the approved
budget. The Department projects that the FY 2015 expenditures for payments to
medical providers and the compensation payroll will equal the rate of expenditures in
FY 2014.
In your letter you also raised a question regarding the accounting methods used to
record expenditures. The Department of Employment Services, as a District government
agency uses the accrual method of recording expenditures. When an agency receives
goods or services during the course of the fiscal year, all accounting records, i.e.,
encumbrances, expenditures, adjustments, should be recorded in the fiscal year that
the activity occurred. This accrual method of recording expenditures is commonly
utilized in government accounting and is a generally accepted accounting principle.
You also asked for an explanation of the inconsistency in figures reported for FY 2013
expenditures in the Disability Compensation Program, The Disability Compensation
Program expenditures are consistently recorded based on the date invoices are
received and based on the approximately $4 million dollars of expenditures. These
expenditures were reflected in the FY 2001 closing. True cash expenditures in FY 2013
were approximately $30 million; however, approximately $4 million dollars was properly
charged against the FY 2001 accrual, leaving approximately $26 million in expenditures
in FY 2013.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Bob Doe
15
Dear Councilmember Smith:
This letter is in response to the issues raised regarding FY 2013 expenditures and the FY
2015 spending pressures for the Disability Compensation Program. Expenditures for the
Disability Compensation Program in FY 2013 and FY 2014 totaled $25.3 million and $28.9
million, respectively. The Disability Compensation Program had higher expenditures
than budgeted in FY 2013 and FY 2014, requiring additional funds in both fiscal years.
Consequently, the budgets for the compensation payrolls to pay claimants and for
contractual services to pay medical providers required reprogramming additional funds
from other sources.
Based on expenditures represented in the SOAR report, DOES had expended
approximately $4.8 million for payroll compensation. The SOAR expenditures for
December did not include costs for health benefits to ACMECO and the Office of
Personnel Management that average approximately $123,000 monthly or $369,000 for
the three-month period. By adding the cost for health benefits with the payroll
expenditures through December, actual expenditures for the three-month period total
approximately $5.2 million. The $5.2 million represents 6.5 pay periods in FY 2015. The
average pay period cost for disability compensation totals approximately $809,816 a
month. The FY 2015 year-end projection of $21 million is based on the average pay
period costs of $809,816 times 26 pay periods. The variance between the approved FY
2015 budget of $18.8 million and the expenditure projection of $21 million creates a
spending pressure of $2.2 million. In FY 2015, DOES projects spending approximately
$6,700,000 for payments to medical providers. Projected expenditures exceed the FY
2015 budget by $1 million. Fiscal Year projections are based on expenditures to Medical
Providers in FY 2013 and FY 2014.
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
Fiscal Year
Approved
Budget
Revised Budget
Actual
Expenditures
Variance
(A-C)
FY 2013
21,089
25,584
25,291
-4,202
FY 2014
25,150
28,195
28,993
3,843
If you have any further questions, please contact Joe at 777-1111.
Sincerely,
Bob
16
More Info on Ruptured Pipelines and Smart Pigs
PROBLEM WITH RUPTURED PIPELINES
The nation’s more than 180,000 miles of petroleum transmission pipelines are the primary means
of moving crude oil, gasoline, diesel fuel and other petroleum products to consumer markets.
Like any long-lived asset, oil pipelines must be managed and maintained. The ultimate goal is
zero accidents. However, reported incidents were collected by CBS News for 2010 at wells and
pipelines from three federal agencies and 23 of 33 oil and gas producing states. Not counting
the BP disaster, CBS found at least 6,500 spills, leaks, fires or explosions nationwide - that's 18 a
day. Overall, at least 34 million gallons of crude oil and other potentially toxic chemicals were
spilled in 2010. That's triple the size of the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill. This amount is typical of the
amount spilled every year throughout the United States. Therefore, inspecting pipelines to make
sure ruptures don’t occur is critical.
WHAT THE NEW SMART PIG RULE WILL REQUIRE
The Office of Pipeline Safety is responsible for inspecting pipelines, but undetected ruptures are
still occurring. Every year around 34 million gallons of oil and toxic chemicals are spilled. To deal
with this situation, a new rule was passed that required the use of “smart pigs” to help inspectors
find problems within pipelines before ruptures happen. The new smart pig rule will not require all
inspectors to own and use their own smart pigs. Instead, the new rule will require pipeline
operators to use smart pigs on a regular basis and to send smart pig reports to inspectors. All
inspectors must know how to interpret the smart pig reports they receive from the operators.
THE NEED FOR SMART PIGS
Smart Pigs are inspection devices that move inside a pipeline usually pushed along by the
flowing material. They are used primarily to detect wall thinning caused by ordinary corrosion.
Smart pigs can now detect other types of defects - cracks, coating disbondment, dents and.
Smart pigs can pass along multi-diameter pipelines to detect the precise location of any internal
structural problem, and they do not interfere with or need the flowing material to still be
operational.
High-resolution smart pigs can accurately detect, size, and locate corrosion or any other
anomalies in pipelines. Once the problem is detected the information can be used to
implement a repair or replacement program, determine if re-inspection is necessary, and
evaluate effectiveness of a corrosion inhibitor program. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Corporation used a smart pig and realized an estimated savings of about $2 million by avoiding
the cost of replacing valves in a pipeline section. "Transco believes a conservative estimate of its
own savings over the next 10 years from use of this device could be $50 million." (GRI; 2013)
AVAILABLE TRAINING
Signa Engineering Corp. and several other similar vendors provide third-party training solution for
pipe inspectors. Signa instructors are petroleum engineers and operations specialists with years
of on-the-job experience, providing complete and easy-to-understand classroom material to
show inspectors how to implement new technology in the field or in the office. Signa has
provided training for inspectors worldwide as well as hundreds of major and small operators,
independents and service companies. We provide monthly classes at our Houston location or
custom training to fit our client's specific needs. Smart Pig Training classes run for 3 days. The cost
is $800/participant. A class can accommodate up to 50 inspectors.