Meeting Minutes

JOINT SESSION

SUBCOMMITTEE ON PRESSURE RELIEVING SYSTEMS

1:30 pm. - 5:00 p.m. Hyatt Regency Century Plaza Wednesday, November 12, 2008 Los Angeles, California

Chester Brooke – ChairmanHåkon Løvåsen – Vice Chairman

I. Introductions and registration of attendance The meeting agenda was reviewed and the proposed changes to the meeting agenda were accepted.

II. Appointment of Secretary to record minutes Brad Otis was appointed secretary.

III. Approval of minutes from the Fall 2007 meetingThe meeting minutes for the last meeting were reviewed. A few minor corrections were made. Chester updated the minutes.

IV. Task Force reports

Document Status Summary

API Document Current Published Year

Due Current Status Target First Ballot

Target Published Year

520 Part I 2000 2005 Proof #2 2Q2006 2008520 Part II 2003 2008 Under Review 2Q2009 2010521 2007 2012 Published (ISO-

Amendment 2008 consensus to publish in API)

4Q2010 (FDIS)

2012

526 2002 2007 Proof #2 4Q2006 2009527 2007 2012 Re-affirmed 2011 20122000 1998 2003 Adopt back ballot

of ISO-283004Q2008 2009

TF 520 - Phil Henry

The task force for 520 met on Tuesday November 11, 2008. There were about 50 attendees. Three technical inquiries were addressed: one dealt with PRV/RD set

1

points relative to each other (a team was formed to develop additional guidance); one dealt with whether the inlet pressure should be reduced if the 3% inlet loss criteria was met; and one dealt with whether the inlet loss needs to also be considered when establishing the maximum allowable backpressure on a relief.

Part 1: reviewed the page proofs. A sub team will be reviewing page proofs #2.

Part II: Reviewed paragraph on inlet loss rules. The most contentious points dealt with rated vs required flow rates. Safe venting of bellows PRV vents was discussed. Appendix A was also reviewed.

Status of ISO-4126 Part 10 was reviewed.

TF-521 - Ed Zamejc

The task force for 521 met in conjunction with the ISO 23251 working group on Monday November 10, 2008. There were 54 attendees.

Five technical inquiries were addressed: one was whether a fire PRV is required if there is emergency depressuring provided, one came from ISO dealing with external pool fire and resulting relieving pressure.

Discussed a typo in ISO-23251. Will work with ISO to correct this promptly.

Reviewed API's response to the CSB. Discussed the fact that these guidelines do not permit grandfathering.

Risk criteria was discussed and it was agreed that this was not within the working groups purview to address this.

An interim meeting in 1Q2009 will be conducted to work on consolidation of two sections. Another sub group will be working on relief system documentation, and another team will work on language dealing with toxics.

TF 526/527 - Roger Danzy

The task force for 526/527 met on Wednesday November 12, 2008. There were 34 attendees. Discussed an inquiry dealing with spring temperatures (a team will develop a recommended response). A new table will be developed to provide guidance on what spring materials to use. There were no items for API 527

TF 2000 – Michael Davies

Michael Davies led the session in place of Denis DeMichael, who was unavailable.

The task force met on Wednesday November 12, 2008. There were 43 attendees. No new technical inquiries were addressed.

Chester Brooke made a presentation on API's draft ISO strategy. See attached presentation.

2

During the ISO-28300 FDIS ballot the API received three letters from manufacturers. The taskforce was interested in the concerns that the three companies had expressed so the three letters and the written response to their concerns was reviewed.

The adopt back balloting will proceed. A written description of the adopt back work process will be sent to members.

TF PRV Inlet Loss/Stability - Ed Zamejc

Met on Tuesday November 11, 2008. Ron Darby's work is a bit behind schedule. Plan on meeting in early December to discuss Ron's model. Discussed how Chiyoda would join the project. Identified 10 issues that need to be resolved in order for Chiyoda participate a win-win manner. The taskforce believes that Chiyoda participation provides more than enough value to offset a likely delay in completion to 2010.

V. Status Updates on Other Ongoing Business ISO Standard Activities – Alan West

Reviewed ISO 4126 (TC-185) progress since last meeting. Working groups had been set up to work on Parts 1, 4, 5, 7 and meetings were held in Paris in October 2008. US was represented in those meetings by Alan West, Phil Henry, and Aubry Shackelford. Very good progress. Expect these to be completed in 2 years.

The working group on Part 10 met also. Technical logjam on two-phase flow was broken. Significant progress was made. Thanks to Phil and Aubry.

Managing Technical Inquiries (TI) through the ballot process - Haakon Loevaasen

Haakon summarized what he had found regarding practices with TIs.

ASME practices: Inquiries should be written for a yes/no answer.

ISO: TC-67 Annex G covers TI. ISO will only accept the TI if it goes through the member body of each country. It also requires that the inquiries be written for a yes or no answer. Involvement of manufactures in preparing the TI response is not allowed. It also states that the response must be issued within 6 weeks.

API: Work process allows manufacturer's input but each TI is balloted. API-620 has been dealing with TIs by converting them into agenda items to work.

Action - Haakon will draft a proposal for the Spring API meeting.

CRE Topics – Chester Brooke

3

PRV Stability Project: CRE is OK with potential schedule delay

API References: CRE is not comfortable with informative references that are not readily available. When information is not readily available and is copyrighted then we should include text stating that this reference may not be available. Tom Bevilacqua pointed out that information can always be found in good libraries, it is really an issue of how hard the user wants to look.

Overdue API Standards: Action must be taken if the API Standard (or RP) will be overdue since any overdue standards can be considered inactive and no longer applicable by the user. If the task force cannot accelerate their work and meet the deadline, then either they file for an extension with the CRE or they must re-affirm the standard. The maximum extension granted will be 2 years. If re-affirmed, the task force can still work on the standard and issue it when completed however it must be complete within 5 years of the affirmation.

VI. Old Business

Reference pressure for inlet and outlet pressure drop for installation which includes significant constant superimposed backpressure - Phil Henry

Action: Aubry will work on this and report out in Spring API meeting.

Pressure relief issues in other API documents – Draft list of topics that SC PRS should address in other API documents – Tom Bevilacqua & Chester Brooke.

Action: Tom will work on this and report out in Spring API meeting.

API Roundtables – Chester Brooke

CRE is encouraging the use of round tables format (across different subcommittees) in API context for information sharing and fodder for revision to documents. Scheduling for PRS will be difficult without expansion of the overall API meeting schedule. Potential topics identified during Fall 2007 meeting:

1. Heat recovery steam generator & PRS (tube failure): API 521 and 534 to get together to discuss the heat recovery tube rupture issue. Action - Chester to set up a 2 hour working meeting during the Fall 2009 API meeting.

2. API 581 (Risk based inspection, especially Pressure Relief Devices): Not discussed.

3. Flare group & 521: Not discussed

Action – Chester Brooke and Tom Bevilacqua to identify where there is overlap and develop proposals to have roundtable discussions.

VII. New Business

4

Publication Error Problems – Steven Crimaudo

All of the task force chairs have had problems with getting error free drafts turned into error free publications. The subcommittee asked Steven (on short notice) to discuss the API editing work process. Steven stated that there have been problems with software interactions with translating equations. New software should convert graphics better than in the past.

Several examples were described to Steven. API-521 Examples included: typos, changes in equations. API-520 found a bunch or errors in the proof (equations appeared to have been retyped), errors in tables (appeared to be a copy paste error), and greater than equal signs reversed. There were 15 different versions before got a good final proof. API-526 found values within tables were inadvertently changed.Ed Zamejc pointed out that the ISO work process went very well. There were very few errors.

Action - Ed Zamejc to send Steven information on how ISO does their editing and their QA.

Translation between Microsoft Word and PDF PageMaker has been a problem. The group questioned why we are using PageMaker. The subcommittee would like API to look at all options that can reduce the amount of time the subcommittee is fixing API editing errors. The committee would like to have API perform a line-by-line review between what we submitted and the PageMaker draft that is returned to us.

Action – Steven to bring this feedback to the editors and have the editors make a presentation in the Spring 2009 meeting to explain what steps are being taken to reduce errors.

Steve stated when starting a new edition, this will be sent as Word and will be formatted identical to the standard.

.

Presentation on the need for a pressure relief device on a piping component with a U stamp -Stephen McJones of BP

Stephen had drafted two potential ASME inquires that would help him understand whether small ASME Code stamped vessels (e.g., small filters) needed a PRV for the fire case. Small vessels could be made as a piping component, and if built to B31.3 no PRV for the fire case would be required. Based on previous Code interpretations, the pressure relieving subcommittee advised Stephen that the ASME response to the two draft inquires would most likely be "yes" (i.e., PRVs would be required). One option is to not purchase these ASME U stamped.

Mechanical Valve Interlocks - Kim Swinford and Mr. Smith of Smith Flow Control

The purpose of the presentation was to increase awareness of the potential to use mechanical interlocks in lieu of other valve position controls. A mock up spare PRV manifold was displayed and used to show how a mechanical key interlock system could work. The manufacture pointed out that not only do the interlocks provide valve controls but they also assure proper valve sequence. There was a question and answer session with the following points made:

5

1. ASME Appendix M lists car seals, valve locks and mechanical interlocks as acceptable valve controls (they don't specify which method is better).

2. At least one company differentiates between car seals and valve locks. They have guidelines on when to use one over the other.

3. One company explained that the success of valve control methods is highly dependent on the culture. In some locations the experience with car seals is very good but with mechanical interlocks it has been poorer. In other locations the experience with car seals has shown to be poorer but with mechanical interlocks it has been good.

4. One company shared their learnings with mechanical interlocked systems: 1) the operators need to be trained to put the keys back in the cabinet (not in their desk or in their pockets), and 2) different systems may have different quality. Designs need to be robust and be able to work in the environment so that the keys don't get jammed.

5. The manufacturer suggested that installations be specified as turnkey with the manufacturer since most contractors won't be very experienced in installing the interlocks and making the proper adjustments.

A portion of the attached was presented by the manufacturer.

VIII. Any Other BusinessNo other business

IX. AdjournMeeting was adjourned at 5:00 pm

6