A/G Piping as per CSA Z662 on lease 4

[bdp6632]

I am preparing an RFQ package to be sent out to bidders for some A/G portion of pipeline on Pig receiver side.All the piping would be as per CSA Z662 and is in Alberta. I have few questions in this regard and will appreciate a quick response:
In my understanding CRN numbers for the valves and other fittings is not mandatory if the design code is CSA even though most of the clients like to have it but code does not require it, right? Also because ours pipeline is on lease and needs no licensing as per AER so second reason why we can live without CRN.
I am not sure where would this spool package be done, in India, China or North America, so what are other regulatory requirements which I need to make sure that vendor needs to fulfill before taking up the assignment.
Usually how do these kind of spool package are quoted. Based on $/unit weight for various grades of steel, or per unit dia of weld for different pipe dias? I was told that North Americans like to go by weld area per dia while overseas like to go by dollar value per unit weight. I have given both the option in my package but if people bid in different ways , how can we make sure while making a comparison that we are comparing apples to apples. Any one has experience with spool fabrication bids?

One last thing, do the fabricator has be to be CSA certified to take the job or is it ok if he is not certified but can provide us with Weld Procedure Specification (WPSs) as per CSA?

Appreciate a quick reply
Thanks

 

[BigInch]

I'll let somebody else address the CSA issue, but you definitely want to require the bidders to respond by $/unit. $/whatever is on the skid etc. $/lb is find for commodity items, like washers, flour, copper, etc.

Nobody anywhere wants to get prices quoted back to them in $/lb for a pig launcher, or any other fabricated piece.

$150,000 for 16" valve skid
$120,000 for 8" pig launcher
etc.

 

[SNORGY]

bdp6632:

To meet CSA Z662, you require a CRN for the pig barrel closure; the design code for that particular component is ASME Section VIII Division 1.

To meet the requirements for the documentation and marking of materials, you need to comply with Clause 5 (5.6.1 thru 5.6.4 and 5.7.1 thru 5.7.2) and, if sour, Clause 16 (16.4.3.1 thru 16.4.3.3).

Welding (WPS / PQR) is usually accepted in accordance with ASME Section IX, but when in doubt, specific welding requirements are set out in CSA Z662 Clause 7 and additional requirements for sour service occur in Clause 16 (in particular, 16.6).

The best way to get your pig barrel cost is to draw it, get a BOM, and have a fabricator bid it. If you wanted to undertake this yourself, take ($/lb x lb) for steel + ($/fitting x N) for fittings + ($/inch x X) for weld inches and add 20% or thereabouts.

 

[bdp6632]

Thanks for the input. The package does not include the pig barrel at all. All it includes is spools around the barrel area like kicker line, purge line, by pass line etc

 

[kacarrol]

While I'm not all that familiar with Alberta piping codes, I doubt you can get away with no CRN's. Have you looked through the ABSA website?

http://www.absa.ca/faq/CodesAndStandardsWhat.aspx

CSA B51 is higher in the hierarchy than Z662. CSA B51 would require the CRN's per section 4.3.

 

[SNORGY]

kcarrol,

Excellent point, and a star for it. However, if the Code Of Construction is CSA Z662, then CSA B51 might not be given hierarchy in non-Canadian jurisdictions.

If CSA B51 was to be upheld, it might make it difficult for the OP to source fittings such as forgings, flanges, O-Lets and so forth from anywhere other than Canada.

I did come across this link:

http://www.pveng.com/CRN/CRN_Fitting/CRN_Fitting.php

Codes are convoluted pieces of writing at the best of times. Sometimes it seems to me as if the only way to meet every aspect of all of them is to build nothing at all.

 

[kacarrol]

Snorgy,

Thanks for the star! Codes are rather convoluted, especially since the Canadian codes layer on top of the ASME codes (I'm currently in nuclear, it gets even worse as we are technically a federal site and therefore provincial codes do not apply unless stipulated in our license).

PV Eng is a great website, I have used their content often. My other go to site is Key Design Engineering (

http://www.keydesigneng.com/).

Oddly enough, both of these companies are in Waterloo, Ontario.

I made the Alberta post as the OP mentioned their pipe is in Alberta.

Regards,
K

 

[SNORGY]

kcarrol,

You are correct on that one too. The OP does state that the assembly ends up in Alberta despite being unsure yet where the components are being sourced. One "out" that I suspect the OP has is to keep the entire assembly completely under the CSA Z662 Code Of Construction so that it would be considered exempt from ABSA registration. Then the requirements for CRN registration for each fitting would follow the rules of that Code.

It is certainly unlikely that fittings sourced out of India or China would automatically have CRN registration.

 

[kacarrol]

Snorgy,

I believe provincial regulations are at the top of this hierarchy. After a little more reading (again this is only speculation as I haven't worked with piping under Alberta codes in over a decade), I believe the OP must follow the Pressure Equipment Safety Regulation (PESR) (

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2006_049.pdf).

The PESR states:
Paramountcy
2(1) If there is a conflict between a code or standard declared in force by this Regulation and another regulation under a statute of Alberta, the other regulation prevails over the code or standard.
(2) If there is a conflict between the provisions of the CSA Standard B51, Boiler, Pressure Vessel and Pressure Piping Code,
declared in force by this Regulation and any other code or standard declared in force by this Regulation, the provisions of the CSA
Standard B51, Boiler, Pressure Vessel and Pressure Piping Code prevail over the other code or standard.

This says to me that: provincial regulations trump codes and standards, and then CSA B51 trumps all the other codes and standards.

The PESR also states:
Registration
Pressure equipment design registration
14(1) No person shall
(a) construct or manufacture for use in Alberta, or
(b) import for use in Alberta
any pressure equipment unless the design of that pressure equipment is registered by the Administrator pursuant to section 40
of the Act and the design of the pressure equipment meets the requirements of this Regulation.
(2) A person who intends to bring into Alberta new or used pressure equipment, the design of which has not been registered by
the Administrator, must ensure that the owner of the design, or the manufacturer of the boiler, pressure vessel, fired-heater pressure coil, thermal liquid heating system, pressure piping system or fitting obtains registration of the design of the pressure equipment.

I don't think there is anyway of getting around the CRN requirement. Maybe the OP could register the system as a whole without CRN registered fittings, but he would need to talk to the ABSA Administrator about how that works. I've always been told that the process is pretty arduous when your fittings don't have individual CRN's, but that is in Ontario.

It's also worth noting that the ABSA has a User Guide to the PESR (

http://www.absa.ca/Forms/AB-516 PESRUserGuide.pdf)

Also, as a side note: for pig launchers etc, I believe the OP may also need to follow the Pipeline Act (

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/p15.pdf).

Regards,
K

 

[SNORGY]

To me, paramountcy would be established by AER Directive 077, Part B; therein is a Reference Tool that was originally jointly authored and published by Shell, ABSA and the (then) ERCB in the summer of 2005 (if my old memory serves me correctly) in which are set out the interpretations for the jurisdictional relationships between pipelines, piping and pressure equipment. Pipeline facilities built in accordance with CSA Z662 (and there is some flexibility afforded to the designer to choose what code of construction applies except where vessels and heater coils are concerned) could have fittings that meet Z245.11, flanges that meet Z245.12 and valves that meet Z245.15, and CRN registration would not be required for these fittings since the Act in force would be the Pipeline Act. This is a conclusion supported in the PEEO (Pressure Equipment Exemption Order). Such piping systems are not registered with ABSA.

In other words, I maintain that for pressure piping that is to be registered, the CRN appears to be a requirement; for pipeline construction that is in accordance with the Pipeline Act and Regulations and CSA Z662, CRN registration for fittings would be required only if invoked by CSA Z662 (specifically steam service) or CSA Z245.11 / 12 / 15.

 

[kacarrol]

Snorgy,

This is where I was kind of stuck on the code also. I agree that AER Directive 077 definitely makes it clear that the OP's pig launcher is exempt from the Safety Codes Act, but it does not say it is exempt from the PESR. The PESR even lists Z662 as one of the design codes in force.

Interestingly enough, an information bulletin was emailed out last night discussing methanol injection tanks as installed on pipeline according to the Pipeline Act (

http://www.absa.ca/IBIndex/IB15-002.pdf).

This bulletin was an amendment to the PEEO and included an interpretation that says that the methanol injection tanks (from the same list as a pig launcher covered under the Pipeline Act) is exempt provided it is designed to CSA Z662 and CSA B51. This interpretation would indicate to me that you still need to meet CSA B51, and the requirements of registration.

I am really divided on this. While I can see your point of view, I'm still hesitant to say that you only need to meet Z662 given that I haven't seen anything that exempts the system from the PESR and the fact that the interpretation just sent out which lists methanol tanks as exempt, ranks them in the same order as pig launchers under the Pipeline Act and still calls for CSA B51.

K

 

[SNORGY]

Yes, I just got that information bulletin regarding methanol tanks on my computer screen via email this morning.

To me, the acid test has always been whether or not ABSA wanted to see submittals for registration of piping designed and constructed in accordance with CSA Z662. In my personal experience with this (and trust me, I didn't make this up, but I will refrain from mentioning names), a lot of what gave rise to Part B in AER Directive 077 in the first place was a direct consequence of work that I, personally, was doing in 2004 / 2005. Namely, I was working on a calculation spreadsheet and a piping specification for CSA Z662 pipelines. I was on the phone on pretty much a weekly basis with folks from ABSA, the ERCB and some of my contacts at Shell Canada (who sat on various sub-committees and were presenters at CSA Z662 conferences every 3 years), requesting clarifications regarding scope delineation issues. Eventually, they told me that they were "working on it". I found it ironic that, about a month after I had finished my work, the ERCB published their Reference Tool For Interpreting The Jurisdictional Relationships Between Pipelines, Pressure Equipment and Pressure Piping, all of which pretty much agreed with what I had already concluded. In any event, one of the questions I had asked was whether or not automatic pig launchers, something that folks were customarily building to ASME Section VIII Division 1 Code, were going to now be exempt from ABSA registration and included within the ERCB scope of jurisdiction, given that ABSA had told me they wanted nothing to do with registration of pig barrels apart from having a CRN on the closure, and also given that such devices could potentially be considered to be in cyclic service and require a fatigue analysis. Their answer to me - and I quote - was, "Don't ask.".

Since that time, my interpretation has been that, for anything built to CSA Z662, design registration with ABSA is not required, and CRN's for anything other than pig barrel closures are not required.

I am not the only one who has come to this conclusion...largely due to AR56/2006 (PEEO) Exemption (2)(1)(e). For example:

http://roundeng.com/Did_You_Know_.html

So, the confusion continues. In a way, maybe when PVEng concludes that it might not be worth the aggravation and confusion to NOT have CRN's - so get CRN's - that's as close to "right" as the answer is ever going to be.

 

[kacarrol]

Snorgy,

It does still seem kind of vague to me, but I'm not the one who has to deal with it. I guess it does kind of sound like no CRN's are required, depending on how you approach the argument. I'll keep this piece of info in my back pocket if I ever end up back in Alberta working in piping design.

Thanks for the good discussion.
K

 

[SNORGY]

Thats what these fora are for.

INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

I think this thread has reflected exactly that.