Complying with the standard

[vjr0512]

For the spent caustic usage, vendor requests for a deviation to comply with ISO 17292 an proposes MSS-SP-61 for the ball valves. The material is alloy 600. Vendor claims that there are only very few vendors to supply these ball valves of the above material in USA.

Request the advise of experts in this field. Any further information required can be provided.

Thanks in advance

 

[Danlap]

Standards are made to make most equipment standardized (by manufacturer and end user) and easily identified / operated / maintained (by End user). This is about your title
ISO 17292 in general is about design of common Ball valve with its "advisable" testing requirement. Indeed this is not stipulating MSS-SP-61 explicitly
MSS-SP-61 is about Standard practice of testing a valve
Alloy 600?? agree that it is not common material in USA or even anywhere especially for relatively large sizes. However it is available upon request

So, I am not sure what is your question related to 4 point above

Vendor can say everything they want, but if you don't do your research e.g. find alternative vendor or even source the material by yourself. Then your preferred vendor would always have the upper-hand

Regards,
MR

All valves will last for years, except the ones that were poorly manufactured; are still wrongly operated and or were wrongly selected

 

[vjr0512]

Danlap

Thanks for your reply

My thought of putting the information in the forum is to understand why Vendor is not able to comply with ISO 17292 stating the reason that it is not available in USA. Is it a stringent standard to comply? Whether the testing requirements stated MSS-SP-61 is less stringent?

Basically these ball valves are to be installed in Wet Air Oxidation and critical to the process.

 

[Danlap]

Hi vjr0512,

There are several reason why your Vendor reply like that. To be honest only your vendor who knows the real answer (whether they want to share it or not).
I'll try to provide some hints, and hopefully not touching the political parts of Standards.
My lucky guess is that your vendor (or supplier for this special material valve) is not ISO and or Q1 certified. This is quite common if the supplier is outside USA.
However please bare in mind that ISO is not official regulator by means have the right to auditing the end product. Its done by other certified company (usually NOBO).
Having ISO/Q1 is jut easier for manufacturer to 'sell' their product to most end user without further basic question asked.

For (usually) manufacturer from Non USA (where ISO was created), they normally don't bother with this. And don't want to get tangled into probable legal action shall they have to comply with their ISO testing requirement. So to make life easier they quote MSS-SP-61 among other requirement. Also to have a really complete and official ISO, all the supporting documents and equipment should be ISO certified e.g. test bench with accumulator should be per ASME Sec VIII, etc.

ISO 17292 is quite stringent "design wise" with some area of development for manufacturer to improve. Anybody who doesn't have ISO still can produce this. But not really stringent with its the testing requirement.
Both ISO 17292 and MSS-SP-61 have the same time span for testing period, and slightly different in leakage rate. Both are applicable depending on your requirement which one you prefer most.
Customer may not always right but since they are the ones who's paying, they can have the Ball valve leakage rate as logical as possible. But imposing some foreign companies to have ISO certified is may not be the option shall you only order several valves within relatively short period

PS: I have been in three different role as manufacturer, repair company and now End user.
Maybe others have different opinion.

Regards,
MR



All valves will last for years, except the ones that were poorly manufactured; are still wrongly operated and or were wrongly selected

 

[gerhardl]

Hello vrj0512 and Danlap,

You will find the latest issue of ISO 17292 here:

https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:59736:en

Historically, at the start of the North Sea oil exploration in the 1970's, all experience, standards and operators where US based. With more experience gained, and European suppliers supplying more packages and items, it was necessary to merge and adapt the best product qualities available and suitable both from US, Europe and elsewhere.

Please remember that a lot of specialized equipment and packages have been developed and supplied worldwide from Europe the latest decades, both for land, offshore, subsea and arctic conditions. This includes equipment for sour and salty conditions, and also single valves.

ISO 17292 is a necessary result of the latest years product and market development. It gathers and incorporates a lot of standards and issues not covered directly by other standards. It includes cross references to a lot of both US and EN standards, including the NACE for sour environments. In this way it is not more political than any other standard.

If a vendor or producer are not willing to comply to a standard, he is either probably not familiar with the standard, and might easily oversee requirements, or are not able to comply at all.

Requirement from end-user for a quality certified producer (EN or other) and requirement for any certificate for the valves are separate issues.

At the present time, investment in oil equipment being as it is, it is an open question how much money and effort any producer should and would invest in complying with market requirements outside his normal market.

Anyway: There is competitors out there, and a bid not complying with an endusers requirements is a waste of effort. On the other hand, worldwide freight is reasonable if you have sufficient time.

Best wishes!