Ballot: 653-213Rev0 - Inspection and repair of Appendix SC mixed material tanks / Proposal: To address the inspection and repair of Appendix SC tanks / Ballot ID: 1646 / Date: March 27, 2009
1 / 2 / 3 / 4 / 5 / 6
Voter Name
(Vote) / Clause No./
Subclause No./Annex
(e.g. 3.1) / Type of Comment / Comment (justification for change) by the Voting Member / Proposed change by the Voting Member / Comment Resolution
Donald Comire
Eastman Chemical Company
(Negative) / SC.5.2.a & b / Editorial / Both of these sentences refer to API-650 2.2.9.1. They
should be changed to 4.2.9.1. The reference paragraphs of API-650 were
re-numbered as of the latest release publication. Thanks.
Donald Comire
Eastman Chemical Company
(Negative) / SC.5.2 / Technical / Please clarify which materials that SC.5.2 apply to. Does this apply to Carbon Steels, Duplex Stainless, and Austenitic Stainless? Or is it only to apply to CS and Duplex steels? API-650, S.2.3 states that impact tests are not required for Austenitic Stainless Steels. / SC.5.2 "Charpy Impact testing per ASME UHA-51 at minimum design metal temperature is required on Carbon Steels and Duplex Stainless Steels for:
a) components listed...and"
"b) components listed..."
Donald Comire
Eastman Chemical Company
(Negative) / SC.5 / Technical / 4 of 5 sub-paragraphs incorrectly numbered as "X" should be "SC"
Donald Comire
Eastman Chemical Company
(Negative) / SC.7.2 / Other / "Structural components may be built up plate." What does
this mean? Should we expound on this here or is it clear to everyone else
as written except me? (I made similar comment on ballot item 653-211)
Donald Comire
Eastman Chemical Company
(Negative) / SC.9.1 / Technical / Add "API-650" and delete word "Appendix" / SC.9.1 "In 9.2 shell insert plates shall be made in accordance with API-650 SC.3.2.2."
Donald Comire
Eastman Chemical Company
(Negative) / SC.9.3 / Technical / Add "API-650" and delete word "Appendix" / SC.9.3 "In 9.8, shell penetrations and reinforcing shall be made in accordance with API-650 SC.3.4."
Donald Comire
Eastman Chemical Company
(Negative) / SC.9.4 / Technical / Add "API-650" and delete word "Appendix" / SC.9.4 "In 9.10 repair of tank bottoms shall be made in accordance with API-650 SC.3.1."
Donald Comire
Eastman Chemical Company
(Negative) / SC.10.1 / Technical / Add "In 10.4.2.2" to the beginning of the sentence. Add ", as appropriate" to the end of the sentence. / SC.10.1.a "In 10.4.2.2, welding shall also meet the requirements of API-650 S.4.11 or API-650 X.4.11, as appropriate."
Donald Comire
Eastman Chemical Company
(Negative) / SC.10.1 / Technical / add "b" comment for welding to also comply with API-650, SC.4.4 and SC.4.5 / SC.10.1.b "Welding shall also meet the requirements of API-650 SC.4.4 and API-650 SC.4.5."
Donald Comire
Eastman Chemical Company
(Negative) / 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 austenitic..."
Donald Comire
Eastman Chemical Company
(Negative) / SC.11.1 / Technical / Delete "API STD 650, S.4.11 or" and delete "X.4.11" from this sentence since those two provisions are adequately covered in SC.10.1.a already. Add "Duplex Stainless" to the beginning of the sentence. / SC.11.1 "Duplex Stainless welding shall also meet the requirements of API-650 X.4.12.
Marilyn Shores
Explorer Pipeline Company
(Abstain) / Other / This item is outside my realm of experience, therefore, I abstain from voting on this issue.
John Grocki
Industeel
(Affirmative) / SC.4.1 and SC.5 / Technical / SC.4.1 "shall also be satisfied for the austenitic stainless steel components of the tank."
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 appendix SC/////////
SC.5.2 "Charpy Impact testing per ASME UHA-51 at minimum design metal....." Should be changed to reflect applicability to duplex SS only. / SC.4.1 "shall also be satisfied for the stainless steel components of the tank." //////
SC.5.2, SC.5.3, SC.5.4, and SC.5.5////////
SC.5.2 "For Duplex stainless steel components Charpy Impact testing...... "
Laurence Foster
Marathon Oil Company LLC
(Negative) / X.5.2 - X.5.5 / Technical / These sections belong in the duplex stainless appendix X. / Delete X.5.2 through X.5.5
John Lieb
Tank Industry Consultants, Inc.
(Negative) / SC.4.3 / Technical / Why are the allowable stresses for the design and hydrotest conditions, i.e., Sd and St the same? The allowable stress of 0.95 Fy or 0.4Ft seems very high.
John Lieb
Tank Industry Consultants, Inc.
(Negative) / 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 SC.5.5.
Randy Kissell
TGB Partnership
(Affirmative) / SC.4.5 / Editorial / In SC.4.5 4.3.3.5 c., shall be changed to read ‘Operation at temperatures over 40 Deg. C (100 deg.F).’ change "Deg" to the degree symbol.
Bhana Mistry
TIW Steel Platework, Inc.
(NonVoter) / Technical / Accepted as presented.
Steven Adolphsen
CBI Services
(NonVoter) / Editorial / Affirmative without comment
Larry Hiner
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company(CB&I)
(NonVoter) / SC.4.2 / Technical / The following affirmative comment is in addition to those by Doug Miller
SC.4.2. Some allowance for existing tanks not meeting the temperature limits should be made for those that have a history of successful service. / Add as a new paragraph after SC.4.2
Tanks containing mixed materials which do not meet the temperature limitations specified in SC.4.2, however, have a 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
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company(CB&I)
(Negative) / SC.1.2 / Editorial / RULES GIVEN IN 653-S AND 653-X NEED NOT BE REPEATED HERE. WE SHOULD RELY ON THE RULES OF THE UNDERLYING DOCUMENTS WHERE EVER POSSIBLE. FOLLOWING COMMENTS ELABORATE ON THIS THEME. / “”””This appendix states only the requirements that differ from the basic rules of this standard, APPENDIX S AND X OF THIS STANDARD, and API STD 650 Appendix SC.”””
Douglas Miller
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company(CB&I)
(Negative) / SC.4 / Technical / Note that balloted SC.4.2 is a verbatim repetition of 650 SC.1.2. This is not necessary.
It seems like we are very light on what should be the main substance of this 653 mixed material appendix, how does a tank assessment handle existing mixed material situations.
Further to recommendation to rely on underlying documents; All of this section should be replaced by three sections with broad sentences given in my suggested change. / “””””SC.1.4 This appendix applies only to tanks in non-refrigerated services with a maximum design temperature not exceeding 93C (200F). This is consistent with API 650 SC.1.2.
SC.4 Suitability for Service
SC.4.1 Suitability for Service assessments of components of a mixed material tank 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
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company(CB&I)
(Negative) / SC.5 / Technical / Mixing materials doesn’t really affect evaluation of brittle fracture. So just direct reader to evaluate each component according to the existing rules. You can delete all of the balloted words in this section and replace with a single sentence of suggested replacement words. / “”” SC.5 Evaluation of brittle fracture shall be done according to Section 5 of this standard for carbon steel, S.5 of this standard for austenitic stainless steel, and Appendix X.5 of this standard for duplex stainless steel components.”””
Douglas Miller
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company(CB&I)
(Negative) / SC.6 / Technical / Is there nothing special to say under inspection? Should we maybe instruct inspector to look for signs of distortion or buckling at junctions between differing materials. / This could be stated as an amendment to 6.7 on inspection checklists.
Douglas Miller
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company(CB&I)
(Negative) / SC.7 / Editorial / I don’t see that the proposed words provide anything useful to a mixed material situation. / “””SC.7 No changes”””
Douglas Miller
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company(CB&I)
(Negative) / SC.9 / Editorial / “API 650” should be inserted before each reference to Appendix SC.
Douglas Miller
Chicago Bridge & Iron Company(CB&I)
(Negative) / SC.10 through SC.13 / Editorial / SC.10 through SC.13 No need to repeat all these detailed references that are already in 653 S and X. Replace all with one sentence. / “””SC.10 Sections 10 though 13 of this standard shall be supplemented by S.10 through S.13 for austenitic stainless steel and X.10 through X.13 for duplex stainless steel components.”””
page 1 of 6
API electronic balloting template/version April 2003