minutes of meeting - templatemycommittees.api.org/standards/ecs/sc6/6awg/shared... · page 1 api 6a...
TRANSCRIPT
Page 1
API 6A 21st Edition TG - Meeting Minutes
Meeting Date: December 3, 2013 Location: FMC Technologies
Attendees: See Attendee List on Page 2 ITEM MINUTES ACTION DUE
1 Add watermark "For Committee Use Only and Not for Distribution" to the API Workgroup Meeting Task List document uploaded on the API website
David Zollo Complete
2 January 8th meeting at Forum is confirmed; February 12th meeting at Cameron is confirmed; meeting for March 20th at FMC David Zollo N/A
3 David to send out invite for January 8th meeting David Zollo 12.6.13
4 Item 147 on Workgroup Word document; David Zollo to prepare an SRRR to be proposed to the CSOEM to remove Annex H David Zollo 12.15.13
5
David to send out, Meeting Minutes and Excel notes from the meeting; David to include API website address which shows where the files can be located (http://mycommittees.api.org/standards/ecs/sc6/6awg/default.aspx)
David Zollo 12.6.13
6 Sterling and Mike to send in all Change Logs presented in the meeting to Ed for Ed to post to the API website (have Ed make new folder for each meeting)
Sterling Lewis/ Mike Briggs
7 Mike to send mark-ups of 6A document to Jill to incorporate change Mike Briggs
8 Send all Team Captains Workgroup Word document and Workgroup Member List David Zollo 12.6.13
9 Put Excel notes in .pdf format with watermark "For Committee Use Only and Not for Distribution"; send .pdf to David Jill Bell 12.6.13
10 Add Errata 5 to the 6A Word document Jill Bell
AGENDA
1. Safety Moment - Ladder Safety 2. Quality Moment - Absolute #1 3. Introductions 4. Review and accept minutes from October 29, 2013 5. Future meeting dates discussion
a. January 8th 2014 - Forum Energy b. February 12th 2014 - Cameron c. March 20th 2014 - FMC Northbelt (Conference Rooms A/B)
6. Review material group changes 7. Review quality group changes 8. New work items posting location discussion 9. Review new submissions to work items 10. Review work group teams
Page 2
Sign-In Sheet
NAME COMPANY EMAIL Anthony Matthews Forum Energy Technologies [email protected] Arjin Nolan Shell [email protected] Bart Bartholomew FMC [email protected] Brandon Appelt BP [email protected] Chris MacKelvey Parker [email protected] Dag Ketil Fredheim Statoil [email protected] David Comeaux BP [email protected] David Zollo FMC [email protected] Ed Baniak API [email protected] Gary Kingry ETF [email protected] Greg Cellos BSEE [email protected] J. Keith Rhodes BP [email protected] Jason P. Guillemette Dril-Quip [email protected] Jean Brunjes GE Oil & Gas [email protected] Jerry Longmire GE Oil & Gas [email protected] Jill Bell FMC [email protected] Joel Russo FMC [email protected] John Elwell Howco [email protected] Jorge Garcia Cameron [email protected] Ken Darby Cortec [email protected] Larry Chauvin Cortex [email protected] Loc Hoang Cameron [email protected] Michael Cornelssen Forum Energy Technologies [email protected] Mike Briggs Cameron [email protected] Nigel McKie FMC [email protected] Oyvind Vagseter Statoil [email protected] Randy Stein Cortec [email protected] Raouf Naguib Woodco USA [email protected] Sergio Meyberg GE Oil & Gas [email protected] Sterling Lewis ExxonMobil [email protected] Tim Haeberle GE Oil & Gas [email protected] Tom Lambert Control Flow [email protected]
FOR COMMITTEE USE ONLY AND NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
ITEM DISCUSSION
7 (API Section
7.4.1.3)
Discussions regarding qualifications reqs in this item; are these "shoulds" or "shalls"? It was determined by the Quality group that these NDE reqs are "shalls". Reword as defined in red text below.
Put each specific qualification; i.e.: volumetric and NDE; 7.4.2.2.a) materials you have a reference to ASTME, etc.; "procedure shall be qualified in accordance with…" and mentions specific code. Put specific qualifications there.
Potentially just reference API 20D and not mention the ASTM references. Would that mean that you have to change all of your instructions to go back to 20D?
Potentially say: "NDE procedure qualified in accordance with API 20D."
"Essential variables and qualification methods shall be in accordance with and as defined in 20D."
Information or requirement? If requirement, need more than just make 20D known.
Quality group decided that it needed to be a requirement. "qualified in accordance with 20D shall meet these requirements."
Potential new text is to split the sentences "All NDE instructions shall be approved by a level III examiner. All NDE processes shall be qualified in accordance with API 20D meet the requirements of this standard ." or "NDE processes shall be qualified in accordance with standards such
as API 20D." if you want to leave more wiggle room.
Add NDE processes in the text: PTMT UTRT
"NDE procedures within the scope of 20D shall be qualified in accordance with API 20D."
Qualifying the process, or procedure? It is really the process, correct? All shall be qualified separately.
Leave as is changed in the Word document. "All NDE procedures shall be approved by a level III examiner and NDE procedures within the scope of API 20D shall be qualified in accordance with API 20D."
Organizational
change
Change "instructions" to "procedures"
8 (API Section
7.4.11)
Removed Table 38; added the definition of "fitting" to treat it similar to bull plug/ VR plug, etc. These are somewhat new to 6A group, so decided to put the "fittings" into that group and adjusted terminology. Examples of grease fittings used as a penetration something; term "fitting"
is used widely in 6A; "fitting" used similar to "connector", and deleted the term throughout the document and replaced with "component".
Table is just a summary of the reqs of the text; Table is the best index of the reqs
We removed the table because there was only one section of reqs; There was no cross-referencing; it was just a stand-alone
Any component with 4 openings is considered a cross in the new definition since the word "fitting" was dropped
Thought the table was useless since it directed you to a table, which directed you to another table.
There were reqs for sealing mechanisms, where are those now?
Those are added in the text of the sections.
Some disagree that the table is useless; tables are used throughout 6A
In the proposed text, you didn't really clarify "body"; think this needs to be stated to be more clear, and that is what the table is good for
Body of pack pressure valve is essentially where we put the fitting
Will put Table 38 back into the document
Discussions regarding back pressure valves, etc. falling under the same comments; put so much faith into fittings, etc. and don't always even validate them ; "vendors know what we want;
Maybe the grease fitting deserves a generic picture that describes the components and these are the reqs; without any spring/ component details, makes it hard to put reqs behind it
Maybe have a section for bleeder plugs, etc. Should be clear in our document; if valve has a grease fitting, what is the conduit between the bore and the fitting? That's an area that is inconsistent; from Quality perspective, look at components and what is a reasonable way to define
reqs for these; start with Design to identify and then Quality to look at it to see what to inspect
"This is a typical type of [ball type] and here are these requirements."
If we don't accept this definition of fittings, other changes of fittings reference are mute.
"Pressure containing" means it screws into the body; if it is a hanger, it would really be "pressure controller" and not a "fitting" if we use this definition. And it has to be a female, implies it only has one end connection.
Remove "female".
Perhaps say "pressure containing or controlling"
Is it important to mention "injection, venting, monitoring..." The way it is written, if it is not used for that, it is not a fitting; what about "device" instead of "controller"
Do we need "closure"... "pressure containing/ controlling threaded connection..."
By stating "3 quarter inch less through-bore," etc. Define by size and not function; or "wellhead and valve fitting"; some are used up to 1 inch and available up to 2 inches;
Maybe add definition for specific type of fitting you are talking about;
Prior to this, fitting was never defined.
"Pressure-boundary penetration" Examples was moved up;
In the table above, we have 1/2 inch; so it would cover bull plugs.
Split it: this is a fitting, and this is a bull plug.
Divide fitting types and look at the component levels. Quality to split it by what they feel is appropriate for what is currently being done as far as quality control for fittings; need manufacturers help, too. From there we can look at it from a design/ material standpoint. Everything
should just be one level like on the PR plugs.
10.29.13
QUALITY
FOR COMMITTEE USE ONLY AND NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
ITEM DISCUSSION
8 (API Section
10.1.11)
Proposal was to add sentence about fittings shall be treated similar to "exposed bolting" and portions of fitting exposed shall meet NACE MR0175.
Still should say it has to be CRA material; this may not be clad, may be a solid CRA or plug solution.
May need to add "HH" in the proposed wording.
"For test ports used in HH material class components, retained fluids-wetted surfaces of the port shall be constructed of CRA material up to and including the seal area..."
Material folks should consider the fitting issue that we are talking about; have to be a full penetration weld? Do we want threads in the clad material?
Need to remove "ISO 15156" as part of the API-ISO divorce.
Add that it has to be suitable for materials DD, EE, FF and HH? For clarity; YES
Remove "Fittings shall be treated similar to 'exposed bolting'." sentence.
We should be clear on what we mean as to what is required for the materials
Update the drawing? Why do we show Type 1, 2 or 3? I don't see the purpose.
Show Type 2 as a typical plug connection and typical autoclave grease fitting just as an illustration;
Vent hole: we show the vent hole as being optional, but should it be optional? You can vent the plug; could say we have to do one or the other for a plug; purpose of vent hole is for safety; can use plug for vent fitting; I would show examples; "typical fittings"
Proposed text: "...retained fluid-wetted surfaces of the port shall be CRA material."
9 Column G is current wording; proposed is changing paragraph numbers ; removing the description on non-standard materials; 4.3.3.2 and 4.3.3.5; going to be changed to 4.3.3.4. Just going to be those 3 paragraphs;
We dropped discussion on standard and non-standard materials because that is going away in 6X; That is John's proposed wording
10 6X is replacing ASME method.
11 John recommended we delete this whole section (4.3.3.5);
12 4.3.3.6 is being eliminated
13 New wording is "specified minimum yield strength" Red text was moved from either 4.3.3.5 or 4.3.3.6 but still having non-standard materials so need to define what they are
14 Delete reference of 4.3.3, "NS" (which is a note on the Table 5).
15 Addressing HPHT design per 15K and 17 TR8; tabled this issue and wait and see what comes from 17 TR8
16 We are going to add statement that "back pressure valve design shall meet the manufacturer's specified requirements."
People concerned with safety/ field refurbishment, etc. Thoughts on the bullets?
Backpressure valve is not an energy dissipation tool
Thought there was that years ago, we developed a tool (BOP centralizer tool) with patent and removed it; had instances where it saved a life;
Should include "features for venting pressure prior to releasing..."?
Should be capable of checking for pressure
Goal was to try and make back-pressure valves safer, was the idea
Add "...manufacturer's specified requirements and shall include a provision [or means] for identifying the presence of trapped pressure. Procedures detailing operation of the back pressure valve and associated equipment shall be provided. Back pressure valves shall be maintained in
accordance with manufacturer's specified requirements."
Add this somewhere: "Back pressure valves requirements should be supplied by the manufacturer."
Need to have this for VR plugs as well?
No, once they are installed - that's it.
Records to be provided by manufacturer/ user.
10.20.7.2: Borrow this statement in section C; operating manual;
I say remove operating manual reqs; pretty extensive
Probably a few key points (pressure rating, size, visual checklist), some sound good but need to decide if they are appropriate
You are wanting to ensure they are in the hand of the operator
API doesn't provide for that; just ensures you make it to the provider
"Warnings to indicate..." Are those appropriate or is this opening a can of worms? 14D originally said manual had to show any incorrect usage; any? Had to be shown and labeled wrong; where do you stop on that
17 Internal thread ratings: don't see a reason for change; this is for female threaded connection bodies and bonnets; material is specified; not a wall thickness issue here because these are in bodies; not a wall thickness there; Table 1 addresses the ratings; don't feel like there is any
change
DESIGN
FOR COMMITTEE USE ONLY AND NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
ITEM DISCUSSION
138 Change the detail Y
The taper shown on the flanges is an optional thing; it can be straight; if the taper goes to the theoretical intersection with radius shown, you get option blue; if it comes from same radius from straight version, you get option 2; there is a significant difference; 170K diameter (roughly);
I think that since the straight version was the standard and taper was option, option 2 would be correct; tried to see the flange analysis in 6A if option 2, and all models don't even show a radius; go no answer there; we were thinking if it makes a difference, needs to be clarified;
drawings should be redone to show one in phantom; if you read dimensions, shows J2 and J2 dimensions are minimum, saying that could be zero meaning straight; questions indicated that they didn't realize that
Use the picture out of 14 edition with 5 and 10 in flange; detail Y is confusing/ incorrect
Should rethink about how you go about bolting the radius;
139 Need to decide if you imperial manufacture, use those, if metric, use those
Part of it is grounding rules and part of it is how things were set up
Need to say if you make a metric valve, must use metric drift, or just make the drifts interchangeable
There will be an errata to 20th edition; this shall be further addressed
140 Proposed: drop 50 degrees C req; state something more reasonable like that as which is being proposed
I like that we have it so general (all metallic parts); but I don't like the 'such as' comments
But those are the ones that we for sure must protect
Should have some teeth about being effective, etc. Not sure those words would do it
'Documented and verified reqs'
Manufacture should verify that the product is being effective, something on those lines
If we add the 50 degrees to the 'replace with working' somehow; re-word current proposed text
Manufacture will provide procedure?
Shouldn't that be a 'buyer beware'?
Make an attempt to change it
141 Loc's comment: He suggests the 5" 10K valve to be same as the flange; simple change is to change the maximum;
Was the 5.16 a mistake? B.53 and B. 54
This sounds like an Errata issue
Make the valve bore match the flange; makes it logical
Add the same footnote from 15K
No 7 or 9 inch in that table which would probably be helpful
Room for discussion on these valve charts
Change B.71 to add "ball" or remove "ball" to this table
Add footnote to B. 71 as well
Design group look at reducing the valve bore; discuss valve sizes
Add the 7" 2K, 3K and 5K flanges
Additional notes on API Workgroup Word document
API WORKGROUP WORKING ITEMS
FOR COMMITTEE USE ONLY AND NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
ITEM DISCUSSION
Refer to Sterling's Change Log for Item reference
Item 7 PSL 3 NDE is just on the castings
ISO 2859 Level 2 and AQL Level 4; same hardness punching sampling rate for PSL 1; theoretically, you do a sampling on hardness and could do sampling on surface NDE on the part; number depends on the lot
Will look at CSL 3 for all castings comment; think it was CSL 3 because that requires that for validating process, you have to do UT on the casting
At a minimum, CSL reference needs to address those items
Sections listed are all of the references of 'castings'; may not need to revise all of these
Item 8 Fittings:
Design and Quality has a piece of this item as well; items listed on the Change Log are the items that the Materials group is trying to tackle
Are you getting into the reqs around the fitting?
These were the sections that we were suited to answer
Just defining the materials for the cap and how it relates to the body, but not on the design or quality; design kind of spills into this, too; all of the groups are going to have to work together on this issue
Once each groups work on their fitting material, come together to look at it as a whole and see if there are conflicts, etc.
You are saying a material should fit a fitting class?
Sterling: Generally, no carbon steel fittings with ball checks in them; but a fitting with a pipe plug, that may be okay; we will be addressing these issues
You are saying fitting body should be tested like a body? What do you do with bull plugs? Do everything on the bull plugs the same as the body?
We are going to discuss this and review it as an internal group
Potentially do a risk analysis on this;
Is Validation looking at fittings?
If we add something, it would be in Annex F; sure there is some fuzzy language on it
We had talked about not getting into an actual design of a bleeder plug, and that it has to look like this, but leaving it open; I've seen some designs with ball type bleeder plugs; not entirely sure how to address it; do we define a specific design? or maybe is more of an, 'if it is this, ...';
come up with some type of qualification of the product
Ports:
Where you talk about wetted surfaces, can you look into the leak issue; define 'wetted surfaces'; I understand the intention, but is getting expanded beyond the original intentions
Term in Table 3, it is 'retained fluid wetted surfaces', if we use the same terminology there
This came up in discussions that the definition had some confusion around it
Item 9 Refer to Joel Russo's Word document with possible ways to address issues with Item 10 ; If we went with the way 20B is, you have to use prolongation or sacrificial part or separately forged QTC; we could say, a QTC is good for PLS 1 and 2, and 3 and above you use prolongation or
sacrificial part;
Do we want to stay where we are with the QVC or modify it?
Have other issues come up within the industry? Add safeguards? Heard of issues with the piping/ counterfeit piping
Castings that have blown up on the test stand; I've seen them and they have come from the same suppliers; there is a great suspicion of new suppliers in whole cost countries, but not sure of track records that indicate problems
To carry same argument as Joel, there is nothing that says I can't take this valve body and run that calculation
Should be something between design reqs and that the material is actually meeting or has properties that are relevant to the design
That's why we have Annex F, because we can't write the rest of the spec to where if you follow it all, it will never fail
Whole problem transcends pressure classes, etc. you can isolate this and put more reqs on this, but doesn't really solve some of these issues because they can occur with low pressure equipment, etc.; you have to make it to where it is manufacturable
A lot of times the equipment doesn't see it anywhere near it's reqs
PSL may be the right way to cover that
I would like for PSL 4 to become more usable
Low pressure backseat test is an issue
Item 10 Doesn't need to apply to all parts;
Has to be stated fairly clearly that it is not just allow 6A718 because there might be a timing issue; have to write it to allow for future revisions
Item 11 Whether or not you define when you use it, still need to do something to it; just a statement that there are two (2) classes, and here they are; it's a non-req
Fe10 as "normal" and Fe5 per the user
Tim would have looked at in the opposite;
Our plan is to define one or the other as the default and the other as "when specified as the user"
Why would the user specify a lower requirement? Doesn't sound right
Water injection well
There are a lot of cases that are looking at orders for chokes, etc. that get into a different environment but are 6A environments; makes a lot more sense sometimes to make it out of 4130 and clad than to make it out of Duplex; then you have subsea applications, and people are using
solid clad equipment because it is going subsea for 20 years; as a minimum, clarify the CRA ring groove; going to Fe5 for ring groove makes no sense; by default, it doesn't say that it has to comply with Fe5 or Fe10; that would be one thing; if it is HH material class, should we
differentiate the material class? How should we differentiate material class and ring grooves?
For info, within the NACE committee panel, issue there with cladding and trying to go back and look at cladding; request for interpretation there; stirred up a lot within the NACE committee; clarify usage of Alloy 625 from a NACE standpoint
Try to frame task to clarify existing practices and not say something that it hasn't said before; just clarify existing practice
Must stay in tune with NACE
Confusion about that needed to be done for post-cladding heat treatment reqs; his question was regarding the tables that were referenced
12.3.13
MATERIALS
FOR COMMITTEE USE ONLY AND NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
ITEM DISCUSSIONItem 12 It is not getting you to punch the hardness where it is going to be hardness; HAZ may be a little too much;
Will that change take this further away from the NACE table?
Goal is to make them uniform; make the hardness testing locations the same
In one case is it better and one not? Needs to be resolved
For Vickers, NACE is better; for Rockwell, 6A; may be backwards
Fatal flaw in that the required testing says "there is no recognized testing" and make your own; if NACE doesn't fix it, shouldn't copy this
Need to do both figures and overlap the text with a new sketch so that the location is better defined or more restrictive
Item 13 This is addressing the same issues with that figure
Item 14/ 15 This is also related; metric conversion factor in the drawing
Are we going to leave the metric as the main dimension?
Don’t think this got on the list
We continue to have problems to force this into metric;
You still aren't requiring one or the other; it doesn't really change anything; the big question is do we want to relook at the conversions and make them more consistent; i.e.: drifting; should we have allowed as much distance? In all cases, probably not
Do we just drop the metric part? This was all built around English units and have these issues; just asking for problems
Majority of licensees are in countries with metric; and then they would have to do their own conversions
I think it needs to be in both
Biggest issue: tabulated dimensions have been reviewed well; did both conversion rules (except drift); but the stuff in text like this, didn't get done; didn't look at the difference in effect in a test environment; put this into an organization? I think so
When we get to the task list, keep this in mind
We have spent so much time to get a metric imperial doc, and seems like we are close; don't get many complaints; in Errata 5, put in words "if working on metric equipment, use metric drifts"; don't be mixing it
I don't like that because it should be interchangeable; if you can't interchange drifts...
Don't want to divert this into that; Eric to look at notes
Item 18 You wouldn't be able to monogram equip if it is inlayed with 316?
Yes
Item 20 NL doesn't mean "no limit", it is just no limit has been defined for it; lots of confusion about the marking
I've had a lot of questions on this in the 6A document
Found it a safety issue, if you go to an independent and doesn't have a materials group, there are issues; could be a chloride issue, etc.
If you read 6A, it is repeating what is in NACE; we need to make it more clear that it is "no limit defined"
Because we started with retained fluid classes, when we went to material classes, recognizing then that we cannot specify uses, only what it is made out of, we went to double letters and got the possibility of a number of combinations and we are using 6 or 7; there are ways to do
that where the first would be bonnet body material and variations on trims/ stems, etc.
People can't figure out the 6 we have now; can be confusing
Can't figure out the partial pressure
I don't know if the marking tells you a whole lot; we aren't trying to fix that; but just tidy up the NL and make it more obvious that it doesn't mean that it is good for any service, just that NACE hasn't defined a maximum limit
Put multiple examples and walk people thru the thought process;
If NACE changes something, it will cause an issue
Item 21 I don't think that is a complete list of the tables; update; maybe be Table 33 or 35 in there as well
Item 24 Seems like it will be hard to incorporate all of the different configurations; Tim and Jean to review
Item 25 Either add it to one table or take the tolerance out; I get the question as to "why that value is not in the table?"
Add a note that the max nickel content is for sulfur H2S applications
Had issues with 1.00 max, as that is easily recognizable; need to really clean up NACE because it is vague
That is what NACE states; that is valid for 2nd edition, and think it is the same for 1st edition
Other issues with NACE that we haven't addressed?
Nickel is one of the main ones that are used; we have the main ones up there
FOR COMMITTEE USE ONLY AND NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
ITEM DISCUSSIONItem 26
The reference is informative because reference in text of doc says you shall calibrate furnaces and there are others out there that you can use
But are they tighter than this?
The method is what is in there
Annex M is a minimum standard
Then why don't you make it normative? You can always go beyond that and always exceed the minimum and still be in conformance to reqs
This is unusual because there isn't a value; can't really say one is a minimum and one is a maximum
Can certainly go in and a lot is outsourced; with respect to making the equipment, you are pushing it out to a third party; to meet outsourcing reqs, it usually mandates that there is some onsite audit; using Annex M as a guideline asking if you are minimally performing these reqs;
where you get into problems is the placement of thermocouples; that becomes process specific and need to A) perhaps furnace design, and you get very specific in your Annex M; that's the biggest conflict; if you made it normative and a little more liberal in your wording, I think it will
be fine; leaving it as informative, hard argument to fight against; this has been a problem Annex for while regarding meeting the reqs; the way it is currently called out allows for other possibilities so subsequently there are a lot of reqs that you don't have to meet
Could potentially list them, as I believe we used to; when it first came out, there weren't that many furnaces that met it, but now there are; you go to a heat treater that doesn't do work for oil and gas, there isn't any incentive to do another; so the question is, is what they do good
enough? or don't use anyone that doesn't work in our business?
What's wrong with listing these 4 different methods and cover 80% of what everyone needs;
Some do it on material specs
Difference between methods and frequency; need to figure out the minimum standard
Frequency should be in clause 5.3.3.1; methods should have a choice
Item 27 Taking the TC out was a recommendation; Quality is working on this
I recommend elevating the reqs and getting rid of TC
Materials group has a few more items to address at their next meeting on 12.5.13; will also provide proposed text; will send mark-ups to Jill for incorporating into document to review as a group.
FOR COMMITTEE USE ONLY AND NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
ITEM DISCUSSION
Item 145Get the charge (requirements) outline for the fittings.
Way it is used in the document right now comes from ASME use of term fitting; if you look at the way the doc is structured and way it is used, all of those are fittings; we are trying to focus on those with greasing, pressure test, etc. What we did was come up with a definition and
scope what we are doing; threaded connections port which is used for threaded connections, monitoring and testing; we tried to take that and restructure current use to not overlap with new definition; used "component" instead of "fitting"; that is what we did and no one liked what
we did; a little confused
The problem is when you just go thru and propose a solution, in our group, we've said that. Here's the issue - how do we handle? When you put it into words in the document, the concept always changes; by the time you get the words in, it has changed; same thing happened here;
push-back on the table; whole issue is that the table doesn't add value, simply table vs. text; these are fittings we've talked about, and that definition got rejected; what are the right set of reqs; looked at similar components; treat the body of the fitting like a bull plug, but apparently
that wasn't what we were supposed to do;
Pressure-boundary penetration; that is what we have to focus on;
That could create a lot of problems; that's why we limited that; now a packing gland is a pressure-bound penetration
Lock screws, yes, but not packing gland
Check valve is where a man meets the wellhead equip; that's where the danger comes in;
What is it that we are trying to fix? Fix issue of stinging a test fitting wrong, etc., if we want to fix those issues, now you are going to a standardized test fitting; the danger of trapped pressure behind test fitting/ bull plug, is the same thing; if the issue is that we are trying to keep
integrity of function, maintain pressure integrity, that's what a bull plug does, pressure-boundary penetration; if you are talking about integrity of plug into body, you have already done that; if you are talking about how to sting fittings, you are talking about something else
Some people leave them out when they go to Annex F testing; we already have enough reqs in there, it is part of the valve
It is on several lists; the Quality part, what are the quality reqs that the integrity part is suitable; that is what we are focused on; Qualification also needs to address this
Applied bull plugs for the Quality list of items
It got kicked back when we met with the entire Workgroup
A lot of issue is with the grease fitting; is it a Quality issue, etc. Need some type of documentation requirements; it is more how to use it/ guide within the Qualification group; documentation on usage
Want a set of reqs behind it
Original discussion was that fittings don't really get addressed, no real specific reqs for fittings; trying to be a little more intentional for the reqs for fittings; kind of thrown in with other pressure-boundings; do you handle it as a fitting as a whole, integrity of the body, or putting testing
on the internals of the body; this is why we didn't include it; everything ends up being manufacturing reqs; that is one part we did intentionally leave out that maybe we need to say something about; tweaked the wording in the bull plug section to make it suitable; if we need to cover
more than just those test fittings, it's a tall order but need to know specifically what is going to be covered.
Whatever bleeder plug you have with it are the ones you need to use
But that would void whole valve if you change them
I think if you allow people to qualify fitting in conjunction with fitting in conjunction would be perfectly fine, but if you had a range, would be perfectly fine; just cover the qualification reqs; were looking at what quality steps you would take; where does it fit; on the quality side, fits on
the body side; we couldn't come up with any justification besides over and above customer reqs; no technical justification that the reqs for bull plug/ fitting/ should be any different for a bull plug
If that's how you want to treat it, call it a check valve and be done with it; if you focus on qualification
So why is this different than a check valve?
Did y'all consider a sampling rate on the parts? Spring height, etc.?
Because there is no standard, all just manufacturer's spec;
API WORKGROUP WORKING ITEMS
FOR COMMITTEE USE ONLY AND NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
ITEM DISCUSSIONContinued Integrity of operation of check valve, then it is a check valve; I don't think that really makes sense; going to wrong extreme
Pull it in as a 6A product scope, validate these, it will be a while before we got one that all applies; when do we use a fitting with a check valve that does not have another closure barrier outside of it? I don't think we do;
Multi-ball, the fittings are always exposed to the bore; the valves in the grease fitting are exposed; what is the barrier? Is it the check or the cap? If it is the cap, then you are removing the barrier
Maybe some design reqs for the fitting; must be a second [solid] barrier/ cap, external to the check valve; check valve should not just be the only barrier between the well and the outside world; and I don't think it ever is
When you do a FAT, do you test equipment with cap on or off? Grease fitting in or not?
Some controls on Materials and Quality; whether it is up to manufacturer or not, needs to be written defined reqs; the whole thing, the internals;
That's where it gets messy, you are looking at the body, and do dimensional checks on the body, and then it becomes like a bull plug; you start going inside of it, and it gets really messy
Going to need a year implementation, etc. for some changes
Material reqs, qualification reqs, quality reqs, that's kind of swipe one; then you come back and refine it the next round;
Think there should be one fitting type
I suggest everyone get their stuff together and look at everything once it gets merged; some of the design items will fill in some things;
What do they do for qualification testing now?
Suggest we consider having this as a separate Workgroup to work on; goes beyond 6A; if we come up with something, then we decide if we put it as an Annex, or section into 6A, separate spec, etc. If we tie it to the next revision, we won't get there; bigger topic
Can we at least get consensus on the definition of fittings? It sounds like our proposed definition was okay;
Mincing terminology; fittings definition used for used; lot of pushback on taking that definition away from what was traditionally used;
6A, we use terms fittings, crossings, etc. Didn't want to give up their word;
To me, it's a commercial item; essentially every company has their way of doing it; realistically, we want some traceability, but do we want a serial number, etc.?
I think the definition you proposed for the fitting is acceptable; basic words are acceptable
I propose we bring in Design and Qualification groups input and see how it fits
All items under pressure-boundary penetration were moved under the fitting; need to get a handle on what is meant
Design group has what is the barrier; that needs to be defined
Are we in agreement with the scope (inject, monitor, test)? YES
If you say a cross or a T, it is a fitting;
But there are also definitions to those;
I think you remove the word fitting from T and crosses
That is what was proposed
Wouldn't our document read the same if you read it without fitting in the description?
We put "component" instead of "fitting"
Most places you can put "component"
Maybe if we said "pressure-boundary fittings"? If we can at least agree on what we need to work on, we can later figure out the name
Get down to the baseline of the reqs as a starting point; Materials
Continued What are the reqs as a function of material class; this needs to be tackled by Materials
Each group work on a separate document; come up with their answers to their portion of this; if it needs to be an Annex, we'll do that
We have a 450 page document; most annexes could have been another standard, etc., before we go write another, speaking organization, got to say enough is enough.
Biggest body of work is getting it back to the Organization
If you insert it into the document, and it's valid, it can stand on it's own. If you are just inserting it into the document, you are potentially putting in not valid information; the document is unwieldy right now; this document cross reference itself more than any other document
combined; DO NOT ADD ANOTHER ANNEX, can take some away, but DO NOT ADD ANOTHER ANNEX
Each group work together, and then have organization assemble it all based upon discussion/ review during all group meetings
Item 146 Swapping Annex A with Annex P?
Makes sense
Requires the least number of replacements in the document; there will be a default call out to the Annex A; you letter the Annex in the order as they are called out in the document; Need to be lettered in the order that they are called out; all Annexes must have a call-out; any time
you call out that level of specificity, you have to date that reference; that information by default gets updated normatively
Look for the Annex A references and changes those to Annex P to get the document in working order; wait until the END to make these replacements (Ed to get the Editors to help with these replacement issues)
Reminder: Going to lose Annex O and Annex I, so be careful on making replacements
Item 147 Values for Annex H tools is -20C (which is -4F)
-20C is normal rating lifting equipment
Origin of Annex H is ISO workgroup; we got this when we adopted that version; -20C and 40 joules probably comes out of there
Can we pull this out and put it in another document? Why does it need to be in an Annex?
Looks like a TR to me
It is a normative Annex
It is not on the product list
If you can justify it, if it doesn't change it much to make it a TR, it takes it away from having to update it; if it is static, can still make the reference to a TR, but not required to maintain it; if it is a TR, have a lot more flexibility, doesn't have the formatting issues, etc. TRs don't have
those; another year or so down the road, you can come up with the suggestion of elevating the TR into a standard
Prepare an SRRR, bring it to the sub-committee 6 with a recommendation, and Sterling can say that this has not been approved by sub-committee but tentatively submitting to CSOEM so that way it is in their packet to approve; DZ Action Item
FOR COMMITTEE USE ONLY AND NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
ITEM DISCUSSIONItem 148 Errata 5; okay to update the document?
Intent was to clean up the table?
You can take it out if you want, can also make the fix later;
Action item to fix the table; Organization Action Item
Item 27 Thread dimension error on high pressure test port fitting? Came up 2 Errata ago, but never made it into an Errata;
Still haven't talked about making it an Errata or not?
Delete the dimension from the figure?
UNF2B doesn't match the diameter
Male threads shall be Class 2A; except equipment doesn't match the standard; until we get our fitting part done, this doesn't really cover it
If we are using non-standard, shouldn't call it a UNF2B thread; If we are, we shouldn't batch it; Eric Wehner Action Item to look into this, making an Errata
Item 149Hard to get into finished machine state; can't get perpendicular to the fusion lines, and that is how you get the best inspection on the fusion line; if you face it all flat with a V shaped groove, you aren't perpendicular and aren't getting the optimum ultrasonic inspection
Interpretation issued by API said you have to do it;
Doesn't address the design criteria
Original design didn't tell you how to fully clad; didn't address whether it is part of the design or not;
If it is fully clad, you can do the bore up to the face and can do the face before you cut the groove; only thing you can't do at 90 degrees is the 23 degree;
Partial overlay a change in requirement?
Have to do UT on full clad
Mike's effort was to be a little more clear; haven't gotten any complaints about being confused, just said they didn't agree with it
Volumetric NDEs required for pressure-containing: 7.4.2.2.14
David/ Mike worked on the text in the Workgroup document: "If geometric considerations inhibit effective interpretation of UT inspection of the ring groove volume, liquid penetrant..."
Intermediate machining doing the UT, not machining the part to inhibit the effectiveness
Need to define "design criteria" Action Item for Design
I'll give into that if we remove 316: Half YS of base material, have to do all of these re-inspections, the ring groove is never going to gage in a 316 groove; have to re-weld these ring grooves every time? This is not part of the manufacturer's design criteria
6.5.1.1.2.B in Annex O: You have exception about ring grooves thrown in there, and maybe that is causing confusion
This is saying that as long as you follow those groove dimensions, don't have to follow what? Design criteria or material strength?
Gets back into what is meant by "design criteria"
Remove "design criteria" all together? But may take some work; I don't see any reason NOT to do the UT;
FOR COMMITTEE USE ONLY AND NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION
ITEM DISCUSSION
Refer to Mike's Change Log and proposed text in Mike's 6A e20 w E12 A123 Quality 11-18-2013 Word document.
Proposed text
shown in Mike's
"6A e20 w E12
A123 Quality 11-18-
2013" Word
document
Proposed text shown in Mike's "6A e20 w E12 A123 Quality 11-18-2013" Word document;
We debated if you need to do more than hardness/ mechanical properties
I think this is good for minimum req; it would be nice to have more, but the proposed text is reasonable
Proposed text
shown in Mike's
"6A e20 w E12
A123 Quality 11-18-
2013" Word
document Section
7.4.6.3
On the dimensional, has to be "per manufacturer's requirements", mandates that they do the test
"Acceptance criteria" clears any confusion
Ran into doing a hardness test on metal seals; location can be an issue; last paragraph says if you can't find a place, you can use a sacrificial seal out of the same heat; test method location is up to the manufacturer
Defining the "weld" and the "part"
Not sure it makes a difference
Back of valve seat? What is that?
Do we need to say "other metal seals not covered in the document"? Does that cover everything?
Seal: component whose soul purpose to perform a seal between two other components. This is a clear description.
Item 11 RL1; don’t do NDE and can't do hydro on it; when you do take it apart, then it tells you to do a hydro test on it
Say "for remanufacturing purposes, you can have the rated pressure ratings". But you can't say that BOP has been around for 30 years, let's down rate it to 12,000, etc. It's an all or nothing deal.
You want to allow a manufacturer to d-rate equipment? Well if they can do whatever they want, then it's not in the standard. I think it's outside the scope of 6A. Not saying they can't do it, just can't do it to an RL level.
Should we revisit Annex J? Is it really appropriate? Should it even exist in the standard?
RL0 is getting away from having to disassemble it; shouldn't be covered by the standard because that is just a customer request
Work item for Annex J, is this what we need to be looking at?
Was it referenced on the safety valves as a requirement?
Item 12 Being worked on
Item 14 First three items were to be put into the document
Looking at Section 5, raw material requirements; drops the TC section;
It kind of seems like Annex A most of it be more beneficial practice; consider pulling that one out
People only use the PSL chart; all of those pages of those forms, could take it out and make the document a little shorter without any complaints
Item 15 Started this item, but did not finish
Didn't feel the need to set acceptance criteria for valve torque; but at least record what the torque values were; but has to be within their written requirements
If you require them to do a torque, you are asking them to do a PSL 2 at a minimum?
Add "only for PSL 2 or higher"
Do we clarify to say that either or is fine? Clarify to say to look for fluid?
We have to come up with some wording better than just saying "if you don't see a visible leak"...
QUALITY
Last First Company Design MWC Organization Qualification Quality
Appelt Brandon BP America 1 1
Asuncion Erik Streamflo 1 1
Backus Ken Swagelok 1
Baniak Ed API 1
Bartholomew D. Bart FMCTI 1
Bell Jill FMCTI 1
Berg Sean Cameron 1
Briggs Michael Cameron Captain
Brunjes Jean GE Captain
Burgess Lester TSP
Chauvin Larry Cortec 1
Chen Tao NOV 1 1
Comeaux David BP 1
Cornelssen Michael FORUM Energy Technologies 1 1 1
Cruickshank Brian Parker‐PGI
Dabas Henri Asco Metal
Darby Ken Cortec 1 1
Deuterio Marco 1
Ellis Fife Dril‐Quip
Elwell John Howco Metals 1
Fowler John On‐Line Resources 1
Fredheim Dag Ketil Statoil 1 1 1
Garcia Jorge Cameron 1 1
Goin Tom TSP
Guillemette Jason Dril‐Quip 1 1
Haeberle Tim GE 1
Hansen Garret RDI 1
Harder Jonathan RDI 1 1
Henry Mike FMCTI 1
Hiron Patel Cameron 1
Hoang Loc Cameron 1 1
Holland Bill Axon Pressure Products
Hutchinson Joe OCR 1
Kasten Bruce Parker‐PGI 1
Kingry Gary Elwood Texas Forge 1
Kinnear David FMCTI
Kuipers Maarten Mokveld
Lambert Tom ControlFlow, Inc. Captain
Lan Christy BSEE 1
Lawson Rodger ExxonMobil 1
Lewis Sterling ExxonMobil Captain
Longmire Jerry GE 1
Lynch Jeff Parker‐PGI
Matthews Anthony FORUM Energy Technologies 1
Maxwell Paul Carpenter 1
Mccabe James GE Oil & Gas
McCaskill John Expro Power Chokes 1 1 1
McKie Nigel FMCTI 1
Meyberg Sergio GE 1
Muse Stephen ExxonMobil 1 1
Naguib Raouf Woodco USA 1
Nolan Arjin Shell 1 1
Ohman Kris Shell 1
Otten Eric Gagemaker
Parmar Bhailal Chevron
Rhodes Keith BP America 1 1
Russo Joel FMCTI 1
Singh Abhay Hamilton Metals 1
Smith Steve LNS Diversified 1 1 1
Stein Randy Cortec 1
Tidrick Keith Parker‐PGI
Vagseter Oyvind Statoil 1 1
Volcansek Steven Swagelok 1
Wehner Eric NOV 1 Captain
Williams Roderick All‐Pro Fasteners
Yee Dan BP America 1 1
Zollo David FMCTI 1
Totals 20 16 7 15 12