API 685 clause interpretation 1

[niqhaziq88]

Hye all,

Currently having dispute between pump manufacturer and client on the API 685 (2011 2nd ed.) requirement for protective instrumentation.

Can somebody help providing your thought on the interpretation of API 685 clause 7.4.2.1 as below:
** start quote**
Unless otherwise specified, protective/condition monitoring instrumentation shall be provided. The following items shall be considered:

a) pump power monitor or flow monitoring....
b) leakage monitoring in the secondary containment/control area....
c) temperature monitoring of the containment shell....
** end quote **

The question is whether the text intends that all of 3 instruments shall be provided by the manufacturer or is those listed instruments are options to be considered by the purchaser??

Manufacturer is stating that text is providing options where pump protection shall be provided with some advice for that which should be considered relevant. Not to dictate on what should be applied to obtain pump protection as not all in this list is of value or relevant for all applications. Without any instrumentation their product is fully complying API 685.

Client is insisting that the first line "..SHALL be provided.", with "SHALL" which means a minimum requirement, not an option so pump must be installed with all 3 instruments in order to comply with API.

Pump is sealless magnetic drive pump OH2. Project or client's pump specification didnt specified requirement of those items.

Thanks!

 

[vt2012]

I would interpret that to mean that some kind of protection must be provided. It does not have to be one of those 3, but maybe they are the most common and should be considered. If there is some other means of protection then that would also be fine.

 

[bimr]

I don't believe that "Unless otherwise specified, protective/condition monitoring instrumentation shall be provided." is in API 685.

Was it in the purchaser's specification?

These items are optional per API 685, the purchaser is to specify which option the pump shall have:

"a) pump power monitor or flow monitoring....
b) leakage monitoring in the secondary containment/control area....
c) temperature monitoring of the containment shell...."

If the purchaser's specification stated "shall be provided", then the pump supplier should have furnished one of the three options, not all three.

It is the purchaser's option what instrumentation is supplied and whether it is supplied by the supplier or the purchaser, but the options are recommended.

 

[niqhaziq88]

vt2012, my understanding is also if the protection deems necessary for the application, it shall be provided (optional). But even if nothing is provided (as none specified by purchaser), the pump is not deviating API 685. The confusion comes from the first sentence "Unless otherwise specified,... shall be provided".

bimr, "Unless otherwise specified, protective/condition monitoring instrumentation shall be provided." is extracted from API 685 2nd edition 7.4.2.1. It is different from 1st edition, the para 7.2.2.4.1 is "When specified, protective/condition monitoring instrumentation shall be provided. It is recommended that the following items be included:"

Purchaser/contractor didn't specified any option in purchase requirement. Hence supplier only provide what deem necessary which are pump power monitor and temp sensor. But end user/client now rejecting the pump claiming pump deviating from API as not all 3 were supplied.

 

[georgeverghese]

Reading your abstract from API 685, I would interpret that all 3 protection / monitoring devices should be included - the point on "consideration" is included only as an aid to ensure that the user covers all 3 integrity / HSE risks.

 

[bimr]

So the manufacturer is selling a pump which the manufacturer states that meets the API 685 standard which you posted above and is requoted:

"Unless otherwise specified, protective/condition monitoring instrumentation shall be provided. The following items shall be considered:

a) pump power monitor or flow monitoring....
b) leakage monitoring in the secondary containment/control area....
c) temperature monitoring of the containment shell...."

I think it is clear when it says "shall be considered" instead of stating shall be provided.

I don't think there is any technical reason that all 3 options should be provided. Any of the options will provide evidence of a leak. There may be a particular option of the three that is more appropriate to the application, but it would be redundant to furnish all 3 options.

Don't think there is any legal point with the manufacturers product representations. To create liability for the maker of the statement, a misrepresentation must be relied on by the purchaser. Also, the seller must know that the purchaser is relying on the factual correctness of the statement. Finally, the purchaser's reliance on the statement must have been reasonable and justified, and the misrepresentation must have resulted in a pecuniary loss to the purchaser.

Another legal point, since the purchaser did not pay for all the options, it would be unjust enrichment that the options should be provided at no cost.

I do not claim to be an attorney, but I don't see much of a case.

I would recommend that you ignore the issue. Once the system is up and running, the issue will go away.

 

[niqhaziq88]

george, bimr,
As a consultant, it is difficult situation when intent of API have not being clear and resulting in conflicting requirement of specification. Do you guys know any organization or engineering body I can refer to other than API that can provide credible third party assessment on this matter?

 

[gempump]

You guys are wasting your time here,just ask the manufacturer sales engineer.

Heavy-Duty Centrifugal Slurry Pump Manufacturer

http://www.gempump.com

 

[niqhaziq88]

gempump,
If you have time to waste, do read OP copied again below:

"Manufacturer is stating that text is providing options where pump protection shall be provided with some advice for that which should be considered relevant. Not to dictate on what should be applied to obtain pump protection as not all in this list is of value or relevant for all applications. Without any instrumentation their product is fully complying API 685."

 

[georgeverghese]

Am reading this clause in API 685 in the spirit of its intent : clearly there are concerns raised in the API, and all 3 concerns should be addressed with suitable risk mitigation measures. Would leave it to the Owner / your project manager to sort out the contractual issues on this - that may get a little unpleasant. The pump supplier should have at least offered the shaft seal leakage monitoring / trip instrumentation as an optional cost adder.

 

[bimr]

niqhaziq88,

Your Contract should have a section on dispute resolution.

Contract resolution is an art form. I had the opportunity to watch someone who had a reputation as a end of project Contract problem solver. His technique consisted of taking as much time as he desired and extensive reading of the Contract. By the end of Contract resolution time, most people grew weary of his antics and would settle with him just so they could go home.

His methods had a point. Time heals all wounds.