Testing Requiremts of ANSI B31.3 vs Testing standards of API-598
Testing Requiremts of ANSI B31.3 vs Testing standards of API-598
(OP)
I have seen many conversations related to valve testing requirements of API-598, MSSP61, API-6D and ANSI B16.34. Additionally I have seen as many comments related to testing requirements complying to ANSI B31.3. However, anyone, please tell me where in ANSI B31.3 does it dictate testing standards that supercede accepted standards of testing for API-598, MSSP61 or ANSI B16.34?





RE: Testing Requiremts of ANSI B31.3 vs Testing standards of API-598
We are more connected to everyone in the world than we've ever been before, except the person sitting next to us. Lisa Gansky
RE: Testing Requiremts of ANSI B31.3 vs Testing standards of API-598
RE: Testing Requiremts of ANSI B31.3 vs Testing standards of API-598
B31.4-2006 is referencing 598 under Appendix C. In the large print it says,
"NONMANDATORY APPENDIX C
PUBLICATIONS THAT DO NOT APPEAR IN THE CODE OR
NONMANDATORY APPENDIX A BUT MAY BE OF
INFORMATIONAL BENEFIT" (The red bold is my emphisis.)
B31.8 no reference to 598/599/600 in the 2007 edition.
To my knowledge, or lack thereof, these are specs issued to be in conformance with corresponding ISOs.
In the past, whenever we needed extra assurance, valves for pipeline applications were speced at our option to the API 6D spec, "PIPELINE VALVES". So I'm not totally sure why that isn't being used in B31.4 & .8 pipeline applications instead of 598.
Nobody should be using B31.4 & .8 for steam.
I'd have no problem spec'ing valves for extended testing, if it is necessary, however at least some justification should be provided for why it is necessary to order them with above normal testing requirements of the code, whatever that might be. Its probably not too hard to justify, if you want it.
An example might be for offshore service where easy maintenance is impossible, or at the least, very expensive and/or where no leakage is critical to safety or product contamination, etc. I can tell you that it is no picnic to have a valve fail offshore, even in shallow water. The manufacturer's guarantee to replace the valve, only covers the valve parts that failed, NOT the small army of divers, equipment and operators you have to send out there to do it. Not very good when you get back 25,000 on 1,500,000 in total replacement expenses.
Where extra testing is not justified, I view extended testing like burning in your computer for a year before you touch the keyboard. A waste of time and money, but in today's environment, that might be a smaller waste than what you get even if it fails in noncritical service. Its all about "precived risk today" and how big a meal ticket the lawyers can make out of it later, should anything happen. If its on your own property in an obscure location, maybe a plain vanilla valve is OK, otherwise, be cautious. A steam valve in a tunnel with risk to human traffic passing by, off the plant's plot plan... its starting to go critical.
As for why it might not be wanted, well its just as easy to find reasons not to do it. It is extra time and cost... and it was still not mandantory as of the code editions that I just looked at.
We are more connected to everyone in the world than we've ever been before, except to the person sitting next to us. Lisa Gansky
RE: Testing Requiremts of ANSI B31.3 vs Testing standards of API-598
RE: Testing Requiremts of ANSI B31.3 vs Testing standards of API-598
Just between us boys, I've seen valves off the shelf that appear to be exactly the same as valves that came with the specs, but if you order them spec'ed at purchase, the manufacturers don't get any wiggle room. Of course they charge for that, but you're paying for the CYA factor, which can be worth a whole lot more than what they charge.
I'd generally order off the shelf, unless as I mentioned, if its a critical service valve, ESD, most offshore appliations, mainline block and isolation, or some similar situation. For me personally, no need to high spec for the typical in-the-plant valve, unless you can write down some kind of justification for it, but company specs do go overboard at times and you have to stick to them or ask for a variance. Chances are that if a company spec requires them, they had a reason to write it that way, so (if anyone remembers why) you won't get a variation anyway.
We are more connected to everyone in the world than we've ever been before, except to the person sitting next to us. Lisa Gansky