Hello,
Different customer may refer to different standard.
Metal to metal swing check valve, by nature (aside from hydrotest) is allowed to have greater leakage rate. Compare to different type of valves with same sizes and classes.
It is used as back flow (surge) preventer, and seldom used as a block valve (several condition may applied).
Therefor, in my humble opinion I find two things from your statement quite amusing:
a. MSS-SP-61, probably your customer is used to with mass production / incoming goods. Therefor practical and fast testing procedure may applied.
PS: Be careful on testing period. those x seconds start counting after the pressure test are for sure already balanced.
b. Helium medium
In practice, all (compressible) medium can be used as testing medium. All subjected for same designated pressure and leakage rate. However come with some advantages and disadvantages:
[ul]
[li]Air (environment) --> very cheap, however may need a big compressor and accumulator for high pressure purging[/li]
[li]Nitrogen --> can be transported (for offshore) in Liquid form, quite practical[/li]
[li]Helium --> quite expensive (especially when you need large volume), smaller particle (I am not surprised when valves was air tight, but when it is retested with Helium its leaking), suitable for Fugitive Emission testing since the apparatus called Helium sniffer.[/li]
[/ul]
So, Seat testing a swing check valve (leakage rate approximately 0.1% of its circumferential) using Helium when you only requires bubble counter?
Regards,
MR
Greenfield and Brownfield have one thing in common; Valve(s) is deemed to "run to fail" earlier shall compared to other equipments