CommentsOn - American Petroleum Institute
|Donald Comire |SC.5.2.a & b |Editorial |Both of these sentences refer to API-650 2.2.9.1. They | | |
|Eastman Chemical Company| | |should be changed to 4.2.9.1. The reference paragraphs of API-650 | | |
|(Negative) | | |were | | |
| | | |re-numbered as of the latest release publication. Thanks. | | |
|Donald Comire |SC.5.2 |Technical |Please clarify which materials that SC.5.2 apply to. Does this |SC.5.2 "Charpy Impact testing per ASME | |
|Eastman Chemical Company| | |apply to Carbon Steels, Duplex Stainless, and Austenitic Stainless?|UHA-51 at minimum design metal temperature| |
|(Negative) | | |Or is it only to apply to CS and Duplex steels? API-650, S.2.3 |is required on Carbon Steels and Duplex | |
| | | |states that impact tests are not required for Austenitic Stainless |Stainless Steels for: | |
| | | |Steels. |a) components listed...and" | |
| | | | |"b) components listed..." | |
|Donald Comire |SC.5 |Technical |4 of 5 sub-paragraphs incorrectly numbered as "X" should be "SC" | | |
|Eastman Chemical Company| | | | | |
|(Negative) | | | | | |
|Donald Comire |SC.7.2 |Other |"Structural components may be built up plate." What does | | |
|Eastman Chemical Company| | |this mean? Should we expound on this here or is it clear to | | |
|(Negative) | | |everyone else | | |
| | | |as written except me? (I made similar comment on ballot item | | |
| | | |653-211) | | |
|Donald Comire |SC.9.1 |Technical |Add "API-650" and delete word "Appendix" |SC.9.1 "In 9.2 shell insert plates shall | |
|Eastman Chemical Company| | | |be made in accordance with API-650 | |
|(Negative) | | | |SC.3.2.2." | |
|Donald Comire |SC.9.3 |Technical |Add "API-650" and delete word "Appendix" |SC.9.3 "In 9.8, shell penetrations and | |
|Eastman Chemical Company| | | |reinforcing shall be made in accordance | |
|(Negative) | | | |with API-650 SC.3.4." | |
|Donald Comire |SC.9.4 |Technical |Add "API-650" and delete word "Appendix" |SC.9.4 "In 9.10 repair of tank bottoms | |
|Eastman Chemical Company| | | |shall be made in accordance with API-650 | |
|(Negative) | | | |SC.3.1." | |
|Donald Comire |SC.10.1 |Technical |Add "In 10.4.2.2" to the beginning of the sentence. Add ", as |SC.10.1.a "In 10.4.2.2, welding shall also| |
|Eastman Chemical Company| | |appropriate" to the end of the sentence. |meet the requirements of API-650 S.4.11 or| |
|(Negative) | | | |API-650 X.4.11, as appropriate." | |
|Donald Comire |SC.10.1 |Technical |add "b" comment for welding to also comply with API-650, SC.4.4 and|SC.10.1.b "Welding shall also meet the | |
|Eastman Chemical Company| | |SC.4.5 |requirements of API-650 SC.4.4 and API-650| |
|(Negative) | | | |SC.4.5." | |
|Donald Comire |SC.10.2 |Technical |Add "In 10.3.1," to the beginning of this sentence |SC.10.2 "In 10.3.1, the thermal cutting of| |
|Eastman Chemical Company| | | |austenitic..." | |
|(Negative) | | | | | |
|Donald Comire |SC.11.1 |Technical |Delete "API STD 650, S.4.11 or" and delete "X.4.11" from this |SC.11.1 "Duplex Stainless welding shall | |
|Eastman Chemical Company| | |sentence since those two provisions are adequately covered in |also meet the requirements of API-650 | |
|(Negative) | | |SC.10.1.a already. Add "Duplex Stainless" to the beginning of the |X.4.12. | |
| | | |sentence. | | |
|Marilyn Shores | |Other |This item is outside my realm of experience, therefore, I abstain | | |
|Explorer Pipeline | | |from voting on this issue. | | |
|Company | | | | | |
|(Abstain) | | | | | |
|John Grocki |SC.4.1 and SC.5 |Technical |SC.4.1 "shall also be satisfied for the austenitic stainless steel |SC.4.1 "shall also be satisfied for the | |
|Industeel | | |components of the tank." |stainless steel components of the tank." | |
|(Affirmative) | | |Should be changed to reflect application to duplex SS as |////// | |
| | | |well./////// X.5.2, X.5.3, X.5.4 and X.5.5 changed to reflect |SC.5.2, SC.5.3, SC.5.4, and SC.5.5////////| |
| | | |appendix SC///////// |SC.5.2 "For Duplex stainless steel | |
| | | |SC.5.2 "Charpy Impact testing per ASME UHA-51 at minimum design |components Charpy Impact testing........" | |
| | | |metal....." Should be changed to reflect applicability to duplex SS| | |
| | | |only. | | |
|Laurence Foster |X.5.2 - X.5.5 |Technical |These sections belong in the duplex stainless appendix X. |Delete X.5.2 through X.5.5 | |
|Marathon Oil Company LLC| | | | | |
|(Negative) | | | | | |
|John Lieb |SC.4.3 |Technical |Why are the allowable stresses for the design and hydrotest | | |
|Tank Industry | | |conditions, i.e., Sd and St the same? The allowable stress of 0.95| | |
|Consultants, Inc. | | |Fy or 0.4Ft seems very high. | | |
|(Negative) | | | | | |
|John Lieb |X.5.2 thru X.5.5|Editorial |Sections X.5.2 thru X.5.5 should be SC.5.2 thru SC.5.5. |Change X.5.2 thru X.5.5 to SC.5.2 thru | |
|Tank Industry | | | |SC.5.5. | |
|Consultants, Inc. | | | | | |
|(Negative) | | | | | |
|Randy Kissell |SC.4.5 |Editorial |In SC.4.5 4.3.3.5 c., shall be changed to read ‘Operation at | | |
|TGB Partnership | | |temperatures over 40 Deg. C (100 deg.F).’ change "Deg" to the | | |
|(Affirmative) | | |degree symbol. | | |
|Bhana Mistry | |Technical |Accepted as presented. | | |
|TIW Steel Platework, | | | | | |
|Inc. | | | | | |
|(NonVoter) | | | | | |
|Steven Adolphsen | |Editorial |Affirmative without comment | | |
|CBI Services | | | | | |
|(NonVoter) | | | | | |
|Larry Hiner |SC.4.2 |Technical |The following affirmative comment is in addition to those by Doug |Add as a new paragraph after SC.4.2 | |
|Chicago Bridge & Iron | | |Miller |Tanks containing mixed materials which do | |
|Company(CB&I) | | |SC.4.2. Some allowance for existing tanks not meeting the |not meet the temperature limitations | |
|(NonVoter) | | |temperature limits should be made for those that have a history of |specified in SC.4.2, however, have a | |
| | | |successful service. |successful service history of operation, | |
| | | | |shall be evaluated for continued service | |
| | | | |in accordance with SC.4.1 and SC 4.2. | |
| | | | |Additionally, an evaluation of thermal | |
| | | | |differential expansion at mixed material | |
| | | | |interface shall be performed. This | |
| | | | |evaluation shall be performed by an | |
| | | | |engineer experienced in storage tank | |
| | | | |design and the evaluation methodologies. | |
|Douglas Miller |SC.1.2 |Editorial |RULES GIVEN IN 653-S AND 653-X NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE. WE |“”””This appendix states only the | |
|Chicago Bridge & Iron | | |SHOULD RELY ON THE RULES OF THE UNDERLYING DOCUMENTS WHERE EVER |requirements that differ from the basic | |
|Company(CB&I) | | |POSSIBLE. FOLLOWING COMMENTS ELABORATE ON THIS THEME. |rules of this standard, APPENDIX S AND X | |
|(Negative) | | | |OF THIS STANDARD, and API STD 650 Appendix| |
| | | | |SC.””” | |
|Douglas Miller |SC.4 |Technical |Note that balloted SC.4.2 is a verbatim repetition of 650 SC.1.2. |“””””SC.1.4 This appendix applies only to| |
|Chicago Bridge & Iron | | |This is not necessary. |tanks in non-refrigerated services with a | |
|Company(CB&I) | | | |maximum design temperature not exceeding | |
|(Negative) | | |It seems like we are very light on what should be the main |93C (200F). This is consistent with API | |
| | | |substance of this 653 mixed material appendix, how does a tank |650 SC.1.2. | |
| | | |assessment handle existing mixed material situations. | | |
| | | | |SC.4 Suitability for Service | |
| | | |Further to recommendation to rely on underlying documents; All of |SC.4.1 Suitability for Service assessments| |
| | | |this section should be replaced by three sections with broad |of components of a mixed material tank | |
| | | |sentences given in my suggested change. |shall be executed as required by Section 4| |
| | | | |of this standard for carbon steel, S.4 of | |
| | | | |this standard for austenitic stainless | |
| | | | |steel, and X.4 of this standard for duplex| |
| | | | |stainless steel components. | |
| | | | | | |
| | | | |SC.4.2 Existing mixed material | |
| | | | |combinations shall be evaluated according | |
| | | | |to the rules given in API 650 Appendix SC.| |
| | | | |If no accounting for differential | |
| | | | |expansion effects in prior design work is | |
| | | | |documented, then such effects shall be | |
| | | | |evaluated at the time of existing tank | |
| | | | |evaluation. “”” | |
| | | | | | |
|Douglas Miller |SC.5 |Technical |Mixing materials doesn’t really affect evaluation of brittle |“”” SC.5 Evaluation of brittle fracture | |
|Chicago Bridge & Iron | | |fracture. So just direct reader to evaluate each component |shall be done according to Section 5 of | |
|Company(CB&I) | | |according to the existing rules. You can delete all of the |this standard for carbon steel, S.5 of | |
|(Negative) | | |balloted words in this section and replace with a single sentence |this standard for austenitic stainless | |
| | | |of suggested replacement words. |steel, and Appendix X.5 of this standard | |
| | | | |for duplex stainless steel components.””” | |
|Douglas Miller |SC.6 |Technical |Is there nothing special to say under inspection? Should we maybe |This could be stated as an amendment to | |
|Chicago Bridge & Iron | | |instruct inspector to look for signs of distortion or buckling at |6.7 on inspection checklists. | |
|Company(CB&I) | | |junctions between differing materials. | | |
|(Negative) | | | | | |
|Douglas Miller |SC.7 |Editorial |I don’t see that the proposed words provide anything useful to a |“””SC.7 No changes””” | |
|Chicago Bridge & Iron | | |mixed material situation. | | |
|Company(CB&I) | | | | | |
|(Negative) | | | | | |
|Douglas Miller |SC.9 |Editorial | |“API 650” should be inserted before each | |
|Chicago Bridge & Iron | | | |reference to Appendix SC. | |
|Company(CB&I) | | | | | |
|(Negative) | | | | | |
|Douglas Miller |SC.10 through |Editorial |SC.10 through SC.13 No need to repeat all these detailed |“””SC.10 Sections 10 though 13 of this | |
|Chicago Bridge & Iron |SC.13 | |references that are already in 653 S and X. Replace all with one |standard shall be supplemented by S.10 | |
|Company(CB&I) | | |sentence. |through S.13 for austenitic stainless | |
|(Negative) | | | |steel and X.10 through X.13 for duplex | |
| | | | |stainless steel components.””” | |
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related download
- allen overy
- project business case template
- behavior intervention plan for arguing and
- replacement policy suffolk county community college
- what are interfering behaviors vcu rrtc
- home affordable modification agreement form 3157 word
- teaching the child to use words instead of tantrums
- commentson american petroleum institute
Related searches
- american institute of physics
- american institute of physics citation
- american institute of physics inc
- american film institute best films
- american institute of chemical engineer
- american institute of medical sciences nj
- american military institute sign in
- american physician institute app
- american institute of health professionals
- aiche american institute of chemical engineers
- american institute of chemical engineers journal
- american institute of chemical