07-03: 650-524, merge pip requirements ams id: 109 vote...

3/28/2003API Ballot Summary Sheet

Vote Results

Comments Affirmative Negative Abstain Did Not Vote

07-03: 650-524, Merge PIP Requirements AMS ID: 109

Roland GoodmanAssociate:3/10/03Closing Date:12/18/02Start Date:

Ballot:

Voter Company

83736 John Mooney XNo134699 AEC Engineering, Inc.Steven Braune XNo72864 Alyeska Pipeline Service CompanyRobert Elliott XNo73074 American Tank & Vessel, Inc.Ronald Bailey XNo

141258 BaCo Enterprise, LLCJohn Cornell XNo133403 BP p.l.c.Jeffrey DeArmond XNo

5193 Cargill Inc.Richard Pinegar XNo136286 ChevronTexaco CorporationPhilip Myers XNo131185 Chicago Bridge & Iron Company (CBI)Douglas Miller XYes115033 Colonial Pipeline CompanyAlan Geis XNo139045 ConocoPhillipsCraig Meier XNo78399 Conservatek Industries, Inc.David Martin XYes

105011 Dow Chemical Company, TheDavid Flight XNo137255 Enbridge (U.S.) Inc.Carl Mikkola XNo131617 Equity Engineering Group, Inc., TheJoel Andreani XNo142685 ExxonMobil Research & EngineeringDomingo de Para XNo81918 Fluor Daniel, Inc.Manfred Lengsfeld XNo83689 Hagen Engineering International, Inc.Ty Hagen XNo

134629 HMT, Inc.Nelson Acosta XNo135169 International PaperMichael Richardson XNo70596 James Machine Works, Inc.Marty Herlevic XNo

132210 Kellogg Brown & RootDavid Nasab XNo134870 Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLCLaurence Foster XYes126019 Mass Technology CorporationLarry Speaks XNo135965 Matrix Service CompanyKenneth Erdmann XYes85250 Middough Associates, Inc.Richard Adkins XNo

135821 Morse Construction Group, Inc.Steven Adolphsen XYes113545 Petrex, Inc.James McBride XYes

7127 Plantation Pipe Line CompanyEarl Crochet XNo134880 Pond and Company Inc.John Fumbanks XNo134325 Shell Global Solutions (US) Inc.Donald Thain XNo101360 Sun Pipe LineMarilyn Shores XNo

1

3/28/2003API Ballot Summary Sheet

Vote Results

Comments Affirmative Negative Abstain Did Not Vote

07-03: 650-524, Merge PIP Requirements AMS ID: 109

Roland GoodmanAssociate:3/10/03Closing Date:12/18/02Start Date:

Ballot:

Voter Company134782 Tank Consultants, Inc.Steve Caruthers XNo135014 Tank Industry Consultants, Inc.John Lieb XYes135072 TAQ. Inc.Francis Maitland XNo92212 TEMCORGeorge Morovich XNo93133 TGB PartnershipRandy Kissell XYes69609 TIW Steel PlateworkBhana Mistry XYes

136219 Baker Consulting Group, Inc.Mark Baker XYes

Balloting Totals: 9 8Affirmative Negative Abstain Did Not Vote

17 5

Total Responses:

Total Ballots:

Response Rate :

Approval Rate:

39

31

Consensus:

%44

%65

Must be > 50%

Must be > 67%

NO

2

API Template for Ballot Comments and Resolution Ballot ID: 109 Date: March 25, 2003 Document: 07-03: 650-524

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Voter/ Commenter

Company Section No. (e.g. 3.1)

Type of comment

Proposed Change Comment (justification for change) Comment Resolution

John Lieb Tank Industry Consultants, Inc.

General Other While I have no objections to referencing the PIP Specifications in API 650 and encouraging their use, I do not think it is appropriate to mandate the requirements in such specific detail. Furthermore, it could create a maintenance headache unless the PIP Specifications are to be discontinued.

Douglas Miller Chicago Bridge & Iron Company (CBI)

General Technical General comment 1: MOST OF THESE COMMENTS ARE REPEATS FROM FALL 2002 BALLOT. IN MANY CASES IT IS INDICATED IN THE EXCEL COMMENT SUMMARY THAT THE TG AGREED WITH THE COMMENT AND THAT CHANGES WERE MADE. BUT THEN THERE WAS NO CHANGE FROM THE FALL 2002 BALLOT TO THE SPRING 2003 BALLOT ON THESE POINTS. LOOKS LIKE A NUMBER OF REVISIONS GOT LOST SOMEWHERE.

General comment 2: Impact and justification statements should be provided for each of the main changes proposed here same as required for all other agenda items. The summary list that I prepared in Sept 2002 provided the framework for doing this, but purpose/impact/justifications have been complete for only a few of the items.

General comment 3: I still feel that my comments on an improved process for handling this large multi-faceted agenda item are valid. You have these comments in documents from Fall 2002 voting so I’ll not repeat the comments here.

Mark Baker Baker Consulting Group, Inc.

Other I do not personally agree with this change.

NOTE Columns 1, 2, 4, 6 are compulsory. API electronic balloting commenting template/version 2002-12 Page 1 of 18


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Voter/ Commenter


Type of comment


Laurence Foster

Marathon Ashland Petroleum LLC

Technical Negative comment:

H2.2.a: While a pan is not appropriate for some applications, there are others that it is perfectly acceptable for. The pan option should not be deleted.

Affirmative comments:

1.6.1 add “All documents and as-built drawings shall be provided in electronic format on CD-ROM.”

5.3.5.3 limits the steel temperature to the max of DMT or 40 deg. F. This seems too conservative for Group IIIA, V, VI and VIA, and not conservative enough for Group I, II, IIA, and IV. Why not DMT plus some safety factor (say 15 deg F?)?

5.3.5.4 limits hydrotest fill rates. It seems the initial fill rate would depend on settlement expected by the geotechnical consultant based on foundation type, compaction, soil types, etc. which 650 doesn't specify, and the venting design of the tank. If settlement isn't expected to be an issue, why arbitrarily limit the fill rate?

C.3.1.3: There is no reason for penetrations to extend at least 6” into the liquid for a full contact roof, which is already sitting a couple to several inches in the liquid. Strike “Such penetrations shall extend at least 6 inches into the liquid.”

Steven Adolphsen

Morse Construction Group, Inc.

Technical API 650-524 PIP Merge

Adolphsen comments on 2nd Ballot dated 3/10/03

section vote Negative comments

1.3 No change to read; In this Standard, language indicating that the



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Voter/ Commenter


Type of comment


Purchaser accepts, agrees, reviews, or approves a Manufacturer’s design, work process, manufacturing action, etc., (1)shall not limit or relieve the Manufacturer’s responsibility to conform to applicable industry design and safety standards and codes, project specifications and drawings, and professional workmanship, except if such deviation is approved in writing and (2)shall not limit or relieve the Manufacturer’s responsibility to conform to applicable industry safety codes and professional workmanship.

1.4 no Purchase orders are generally "issued" ( do not require signature of the vendor ) and are subject to the Uniform Commericial Code. What about Contracts, Directives, and Change Orders definitions?

1.5 no Is now 1.6. See comments on 1.6

1.6.1 yes

1.6.3 no Where is 1.6.3 (is not in proposed text.)

1.6.5 no delete subsection 5 (is covered by subsection 4), 6 (unclear as to intent), 10, and 12.

1.6.6 yes

1.6.7 no 1.6.7.11. Location of all welded seams. All welds shall be either pictorially detailed or identified by use of the standard welding symbols of ANSI/AWS A2.4. Welding procedures shall be listed for each weld. Delete 1.6.7.14---add hydrotest procedure to SUBMITTALS section of 1.6 as it can easily be 10 pages long. delete 1.6.7.16---Load table belongs with the calcs.



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Voter/ Commenter


Type of comment


2.1.1 no Need technical justification

2.1.1.4 no Can cad-plated bolts be used on roof manholes and platform/stairs?

3.1.3 no 3.1.3.6.2 repeats what is already said in 3.1.5.7.c

3.1.3.7 no Wording should refer to windgirder section

3.1.5.2.b yes

3.1.5.4 no The following wording is not clear:Lap-welded bottom plates shall be seal-welded on the outer periphery of their lapped edges.What are you seal welding it to?

3.1.5.9.e yes

3.10.2.1 yes

3.10.2.3 yes

3.10.4.5 yes

3.10.4.7 No Add details of simple single base plate (with and without gussets) with keepers

3.2.2.c yes

3.2.3 yes

Steven Adolphsen

Morse Construction Group, Inc.

Technical 3.2.4 no Change wording:Design requirements for vacuum exceeding 25.4 mm ( 1 inch) of water column and design requirements to resist flotation and external fluid pressure shall both be a matter of agreement between the Purchaser and the Manufacturer.

3.3.2.6 yes

3.3.1.1 no Sliding friction



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Voter/ Commenter


Type of comment


resistance shall be verified for unanchored tanks subject to lateral wind and/or and subject to seismic loads. (See 3.11.4 and E.8.4)

3.3.2 yes

3.3.5 No NFPA 780 is referenced, but is not in the list in 1.5. [NFPA 11 and 30 were added in addendum 01, but not added to this ballot (should be in yellow)]

3.4.4 yes

3.4.5 Yes

3.6.1.1 yes

3.6.1.3 no Revise as follows:Unless otherwise specified, the design liquid level H (see 3.6.3.2) for calculating shell thicknesses for non-floating roof tanks 50’Ø or less shall be to the top of the shell, irrespective of operating liquid levels.Comment: It is a relatively minor issue on tanks 50’Ø and less, which is the size of tanks I think PIP is addressing. It is a big cost impact for big tanks 200’ or 300’Ø.

3.7.2.2 yes

3.7.2.3.a yes

3.7.4.5 yes

3.7.6 yes

3.8.10 yes

3.8.11.1 no Add to wording:designed to prevent over-rotation beyond the vertical axis or supplier’s recommendation, if less than vertical.

3.8.11.2-.4 yes

3.8.3.5 Yes w/C Yes with comment to



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Voter/ Commenter


Type of comment


make wording clearer:The davit support arm shall not be welded directly to the shell without a doubler nor directly to the manhole neck or the shell.

3.8.5.1-.5 yes

3.8.5.6 no owner often specifies 150# flanges on roof. New wording requires raised face. The most Common thief hatches come as flat face…I suggest allowing flat face for compatibility with apurtenance used.

3.9.4 yes

Table 18 note 2 yes

4.1.5 yes

4.2.4 yes

5.1.1 no Add the following sentence:Failure by Manufacturer to detect defects during his inspection does not relieve the Purchaser of fulfilling their Contractual obligations.

5.1.2 no Add the following words:After the Purchaser has turned the tank foundation over to the Manufacturer, the Manufacturer shall maintain the grade in true profile…



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Voter/ Commenter


Type of comment


Randy Kissell TGB Partnership

Technical The load combination ballot portions that have been passed (which is everything except the wind pressures) need to be incorporated into this section and other affected sections. I can provide those portions.

3.3.1.1: I don’t understand the statement: “Sliding friction resistance shall be verified for tanks subject to lateral wind and/or seismic loads.” What is supposed to be done and who is supposed to do it?

C.3.11: In the table, metricate 200 ft as 60 m and 300 ft as 90 m.

E8.5: Write “sq. mm” as “mm2” and “sq. in.” as “in2”.

H.3.3: The metrication of 0.05” should be 1.2 mm. This is standard in the aluminum industry (see Aluminum Standards and Data, 1998 Metric SI).

Bhana Mistry TIW Steel Platework

Technical Negative and affirmative comments are being sent separately by e-mail.

Robert Hendrix Voridian Engineering & Construction

Many Technical Comments are too many to post here. Sent to Roland as MS WORD document

James McBride Petrex, Inc. C3.15.2 Other Yes w/ comments. NFPA 11 allows for foam dams on internal floating roofs also. Maybe foam dams should be referenced in .app. H also.

Kenneth Erdmann

Matrix Service Company

C.3.15.2 Technical Foam dam thickness required exceeds the 10 GA required by NFPA.

Kenneth Erdmann


H.4.4 Technical Secondary seals appear to be required on internal floating roofs. This is not required by air regs in most of the country.



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Voter/ Commenter


Type of comment


James McBride Petrex, Inc. H.4.4 Technical Leave seal requirements in both Appendices C & H as is now found in 650.

No w/ comments. Peripheral seals in Appendices C and H have always been and should remain stand alone. The types of seals and their manufacture are very different between the two appendices and should be left where they are.

James McBride Petrex, Inc. H.5.2.1 Technical Leave as found in present 650 Appendix H. No w/ comment. Adding the sentence "Leg activated vents are required unless the purchaser specifies otherwise.." in essence makes this the default choice. This is the obvious choice for skin and pontoon roofs, however there are more full contact options (various steel pans and full contact aluminum) where a float operated vent is quite common. This change forces manufactureres to receive the purchaser's permission for a venting system that has been used successfully for years.

James McBride Petrex, Inc. H.4.1.6 Technical Leave as is presently found in 650. No w/ comment. Changing the minimum number of ground cables required from two to four appears to be an effort to match the minimum number of ground shunts required. This is not realistic as grounding shunts are much more lilely to become disconnected during normal use than cables are. If total current carrying capacity is the concern, then maximum resistance and minimum wire size need to be specified.


1.3 Technical * Negative comment: 1.3.A API 650 should only mandate that its own requirements be complied with. Additional purchaser requirements are contractual issues. They should not be confused with what is required to meet API 650. Additionally, if a reference to the purchase order is added, the phrase “associated with” must be replaced with “as specified in”. The lawyers would have heart attacks if such a loose term as “associated” were to be in any contract language.



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Voter/ Commenter


Type of comment


* Negative comment: 1.3.A The last sentence should be deleted. This interferes with the contractual relationship of the manufacturer with his suppliers and subcontractors. We don’t need to send a bolt manufacturer all the requirements of the purchaser.

* Negative comment: 1.3.C: “Full and free” access of customer personnel to “all shop and field site work” is too broad to be applied without modification to all API 650 tanks. There are safety issues and schedule issues that need job-by-job discussion.

* Negative comment: 1.3.D: “applicable” industry standards is too vague. In contracting, codes, standards specifications etc. must be spelled out and referenced in the contract.

* Negative comment: 1.3.E: Referring to “conflict between this standard and ANY drawing or other documents” is way too general. Add to this phrase, “provided to the manufacturer”.

James McBride Petrex, Inc. 1.1.25 Editorial Renumber second one as 1.1.26. There are two (2) 1.1.25.

Kenneth Erdmann


1.1.3 Editorial Purchaser should identify other materials that must be identified. Manufacturer shall identify other materials if requested by Purchaser.

Not clear.


1.6 Technical * Negative comment: 1.6.2.1 and C.1.2 The proposed regulation of how a manufacturer chooses to make his proposal is inappropriate in this technical standard and unenforceable in any case.

* Affirmative comment: 1.6.2.C This should be numbered 1.6.3.

* Negative comment: 1.6.2.C Preventing the placing of material orders until purchaser



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Voter/ Commenter


Type of comment


reviews calculations, G.A. drawings and even detail drawings will add weeks to schedules. The hold point as described in the proposed 1.5.C is very rarely done today because material orders are typically on the critical path. It should not become the default position in the future.

* Negative comment: 1.6.5.1 Delete “certified” since there is no explanation of who certifies drawings and how.

* Negative comment: 1.6.5.2 Delete “all design calculations” and replace with “design calculations as described in 1.6.6”

* Negative comment: 1.6.6 Delete the following “If the program is not commercially available to industry, the manufacturer shall maintain and provide program documentation on request.” The extent of “program documentation” is not clear. Detailed information submittal is not acceptable since this is proprietary information. Providing name, version, limitations, assumptions and brief description same as for all computer programs is enough.

* Affirmative comment: 1.6.6.1 Not practical for calcs to address “all loads” for all “all pressure boundary elements” For instance, what would the calcs say about the bottom thickness with respect to snow load?

* Negative comment: 1.6.6.6 Too vague. Need to state what items need calcs submitted.

* Affirmative comment: 1.6.7.10 Delete “as-specified”. As specified by whom??

* Negative comment: 1.6.7.18 These notes belong in Operation and Maintenance Manuals, not on drawings. Also how is the



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Voter/ Commenter


Type of comment


manufacturer supposed to know if a stainless tank will be exposed to any heat source once it is commissioned?

Kenneth Erdmann


1.6.6.5 Technical This paragraph is not meaningful. It states that values shall meet appendix P requirements but none are given in Appendix P. Appendix P just provides a way to obtain these values it does not state any required values that must be met. This sub paragraph should be dropped.

Kenneth Erdmann


2.1.2 Editorial Not clear. Purchaser should identify if added materials must be identified and Manufacturer identifies them as requested.


2.7.b Technical *Section 2.7.b: Last phrase (“doubled, or topped with appropriate jam nuts”) is not really a material requirement and so does not belong in section 2. The phrase should be deleted. Existing section 3.12.11 on anchorage details covers things like jam nuts and that is the single location where this should be addressed to ensure that the requirements do not conflict.


3 Technical *Affirmative comment: 3.1.3.6.1 Reference to group IV material should be IIIA instead.

* Affirmative comment: 3.1.3.6.2 This added text is unnecessary. The requirement is already there in section 3.1.5.7.c

*Affirmative editorial comment 3.3.5: Reword this to first just state the requirement and then include commentary in a NOTE for information.

* Affirmative comment: 3.4.5 Figure should somehow make it clear that the drip ring need not be angled.

* Affirmative comment: 3.4.5 The coating in figure is shown only on underside of drip ring. In text of 3.4.5.4 it says top and bottom.



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Voter/ Commenter


Type of comment


These should agree. Suggest just deleting coating from the figure since it is a purchaser option.

* Affirmative comment: 3.6.1.3 The default H to top of tank for non-floaters is in conflict with the definition of H in 3.6.3.2. The conflicts need to be resolved.

* Affirmative comment: 3.7.3.4 For consistency, “SHALL not overlap plate seams” needs to be “SHOULD not overlap plate seams”.

* Negative comment: 3.8.11.1 Fall 2002 wording was impractical. Now it’s unclear. What is the “actual centerline”? Is it the tank’s axial centerline? Is it some tank radial centerline? The tip of the suction line is a point. The actual centerline is a line. How does one measure the angle between a point and a line? The term “articulated” should be defined. Does it mean having more than one swing joint? By the reference to accounting for torsional loads it sounds like the main point is just to require the floating suction to move in a vertical plane. Why not just say that?

* Affirmative comment: 3.9.7.6.2 The width and clearance dimensions given here need to change to be consistent with the proposed changes in Table 3-18, item 2. (24” needs to change to 28”, and 18” would change to 22”)

* Affirmative comment: 3.10.2.2 Changes to this section should be dropped out of the PIP agenda item since the subject of loads and load combinations has been handled under 650-472 (Load Combinations). Introducing changes under PIP will create two conflicting sets of changes that would need to be resolved.



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Voter/ Commenter


Type of comment


* Affirmative comment: 3.10.4.7.b Change “Provide a sealed wear plate….” to “A sealed wear plate shall be provided…”. This is provides style consistent with a, c and d and incorporates the word “shall”

James McBride Petrex, Inc. 3.1.3.6.1 Editorial Yes w/ comments. in a) reword to "..Fillet welds with legs or groove welds of depths greater than 6 mm (1/4 inch) shall..", and in b) reword to "..and machine welding processes, fillet welds with legs greater than 6 mm (1/4 inch) or groove welds of depths greter than 10 mm (3/8 inch) shall.."

James McBride Petrex, Inc. 3.7.3.4 Technical Leave as is presently found in 650. No w/ comments. I believe that the wording now found in API-650 is sufficient. ASME Code section VIII Div. 1 finds no problems placing fittings in weld seams (see UW-14(a)) as long as the opening meets the reinforcement requirements of UG-37. Since most fittings in 650 are reinforced in the present Standard, to further restrict their location is unnecessary.


4 Technical * Affirmative comment: 4.2.4 There is redundant information here. The following words (final 6 lines) should be deleted to eliminate the redundancy.

”The Manufacturer shall be allowed to repair laminations found not exceeding 75

mm (3 in.) in length or 25 mm (1 in.) in depth using a weld procedure accepted by the Purchaser prior to the start of construction. For laminations exceeding these limits, the Manufacturer shall reject the plate or document the extent

of the lamination and submit a specific repair procedure for Purchaser approval”



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Voter/ Commenter


Type of comment



5 Technical * Affirmative comment: 5.1.2 It should be made clear that the grade that must be kept free of contamination is the grade UNDER THE TANK. It must not be made to apply to grade surrounding the tank.

* Affirmative comment: 5.1.6 on external temporary attachments affirms that any tears must be weld repaired. 5.1.7 on internal temporary attachments says nothing about tears. I would think that tears would handled the same for interior as for exterior.

* Negative comment: 5.1.8 Delete “jeopardize the safety of personnel or impose a hazard at site” It is too vague.

* Affirmative comment 5.3.5.2.1(2) add following words in CAPS “from the water source TIE IN LOCATION and to the water disposal point as …”

* Affirmative comment: 5.3.5.2.1(4) This needs to be made more clear that manufacturer has post-test cleaning responsibilities ONLY IF data sheet specifies requirements. With current wording some people are going to think that this section makes post-test cleaning default to a manufacturer responsibility.

* Negative comment 5.3.5.2 (B)(2) On most past contracts manufacturers have been responsible for setting criteria for test water quality and were then generally held responsible for any excessive corrosion or pitting during h-test that might result. Therefore I suggest that this responsibility be assigned to the manufacturer. On the other hand if now the purchaser will be responsible to set the quality, then corresponding purchaser responsibility for the any resulting corrosion must made clear.



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Voter/ Commenter


Type of comment


* Affirmative comment 5.3.5.2 (B)(3) Add a comment reminding users that in considering biocide or caustic additions, they need to check out disposal restrictions on the treated water.

* Affirmative comment 5.3.5.3 Recommend deleting “or 4C (40F) whichever is warmer”. No reason for this arbitrary temperature limit. Limiting temperature according to Figure 2-1 is enough.

* Affirmative comment 5.3.5.4 part 2.e Don’t limit to 3 days however the length shall be agreed upon by the manufacturer. (Water may be needed for other tanks and soil consolidation, etc )

* Affirmative comment: 5.3.5.5 Metric units are wrong. 1/2” in 32’ is equivalent to 13mm in 10 meters.

* Affirmative comment: 5.3.5.5: 2” uniform settlement criteria is too large unless a caveat is added. Caveat should say that reporting/evaluation threshold should be 1” unless connecting piping or other attachments such as stairways have been specially designed to accommodate greater settlement.

*Affirmative comment: 5.3.5.7 The bottom s

Kenneth Erdmann


5.5.8 Technical Roof manways should be allowed to be installed square with the roof slope up to 3/4inch in 12 inches. This is a common practice that would not be allowed by the new paragraph.


6 Technical * Negative comment 6.1.2.10 Tungsten inclusions are already defined via reference to UW-51(b) in 6.1.5. UW51(b)(4) sends you to Appendix 4 which already states in last sentence of 4-2:



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Voter/ Commenter


Type of comment


"The indication may be from any imperfection in the weld, such as porosity, slag, or tungsten."

Tungsten may also be elongated in which case the elongated rules of UW51(b)(2) apply.

Also, the proposed wording has problems because it does not define what clustered or aligned inclusions actually are. Namely how many tungsten inclusions in how small of an area is defined as clustered vs. random. Also what distance between tungsten inclusions do you have to have before it is not considered aligned anymore. I suggest that we let Appendix 4 cover it as it already does or add additional wording to better define the limits.

* Negative comment: 6.1.3.4 The added phrase “not to exceed the requirements of 6.5.1.D” is incorrect. It needs to be restored to the existing text “not to exceed the following values”. This is because the reinforcement limits for RT given in the table in 6.1.3.4 need to be referenced and the general reinforcement limits of 6.5.1 will always be satisfied when the RT limits are meet.


Appendix C Technical *C.3.1.3 Setting the minimum thickness for sleeves and fittings at ¼” is a problem for support legs. It would force legs to XS and could result in too small of a gap between the legs and sleeve.

*C.3.2.2 There is no need to have full fillet welds since seal welding is suitable for coating.

*C.3.3.3 Metrication error. I think 50 mm in 400 mm is intended, not 50 in 800.



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Voter/ Commenter


Type of comment


Also, what does a minimum of 3 lengths of fillet weld mean?

*C.3.3.6 Vents and guide poles must be exempt for the requirement from liquid tight covers

*C.3.10.1 Why must notches at base of legs be SQUARE??

*C.3.10.3 b The requirement for the maximum setting of the roof support legs at 78” could be a problem for sloped up bottoms.

*C.3.12.3 Refers to an incorrect section (C.3.1.4.1) when the correct section is C.3.14.1.

*C.3.13.4 It is wrong to specify that a shoe seal is to extend a minimum of only 6" above the liquid when this is in direct violation of the USEPA code. USEPA code requires the shoes to extend a minimum of 24" above the liquid surface to be considered an equivalent to a liquid mounted primary seal. Seals that do not meet this requirement should not be expected to provide the same loss control performance as the shoe seals tested by the API. Shoes that do not meet the minimum 24" requirement might even be considered only equivalent to a vapor mounted and not be in compliance with federal codes for external floating roofs.

*C.3.15.2

1) The foam dam should be located at least 12” but not more than 24” from the shell. (Refer to NFPA 11 part 3.3.3.3.4)

2) Revise to wording from “with mitered knee brace” to “with support braces”



(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Voter/ Commenter


Type of comment




Appendix H Technical *H.4.4 Similar to comment made on C.3.13.4, seals that extend only 6" above the liquid surface may not provide the same loss control performance of the standard seals provided by the seals tested by the API. Similar to the above - a minimum height shoe seal performance is probably closer to a vapor mounted seal and per federal code may need a secondary seal as a minimum to provide the minimum level of loss control performance.

David Martin Conservatek Industries, Inc.

Apendix G & H

Technical No text in the ballot item availabe on the web site was available for these two areas; therefore, I had nothing to review on these two section that are of particular interest to me and must vote negative.


Appendix L Technical * Affirmative L.4.1 Delete “Use any consistent set of units for all dimensions and other data on the Data Sheet” This statement conflicts with later requirement that units be SI or US Customary.

Agenda Item# 650-524(Merge PIP to 650)

Review Comments by: Bhana D. MistryTIW Steel Plate WorkPhone: 905-684-9421 E-Mail: [email protected]= Negative Comments A= Affirmative Comments

Section CommentType

1.6.2 & 1.6.5 N1.6.6,1.6.7

1.6.3 A Add 1.6.3, if applicable.

1.6.4 N Define What is meant by Certified Material Test Report.Expand MTR requirements to include all pressure components made from pipe and plate.(parts listed in 2.2.9.1)State exclusion where MTR is not required.( roof plates, structural steel, deck plates etc.)

3.1.3.6.1 A Revise to read ……Groups I,II,III and IIIA ( delete IV).( Grooups IV to VI is included in 3.1.3.6.2)

3.3.2.2 A Expand scope to include Flush Type clean outs and flush type shell nozzles.

3.7.2.3 a N Material for reinforcing plate requirements is covered in 2.2.9.4. Requirements specified here is more restrictive.

C.3.1.5 N Provide more explanation about " flectural fatique failure caused by wind." Does it apply to all wind conditions?These type of statements will be difficult to interpret and apply to custom design roofs.This requirement should be mandtory only when specified customer.Does API intend to develop uniform design rules for Single Deck/ Double Deck Floating Roofs?

C.3.8.1 4 A Explain what is meant by siphon or convensional hose drain.

APPENDIX-L24 A Stairway Style:add……..along radius (radial) or helical (spiral)

Comments

API-650 is a Technical Standard. Document package requirements should be separately spelled out in Contract DocumentsThis Std. is used by all type of clents and they all have diiferent requirements. There is no distinction made here if we are building 30' 0" dia. tank or 300' 0" ft. dia. tank. Cost of documents, engineering and administraion will be disproporationatelyhigh for small less complicated tanks. Not all customer have capability to review and approve documents. Does this apply to Design Build Turn Key projects? Mandatory review and approval will add cost and affect schedule. These requirement shouldbe deleted from API-650.

Comments on 03-07-2003 about Item 650-524 for Spring ‘03 Meeting Bob Hendrix Voice 423-229-3285 FAX 423-229-6099 eMail [email protected] 1.3.1 Affirmative (Hendrix) – There are many documents that define what is being purchased. Any document referenced by the Purchase Order becomes a part of that Purchase Order. Whatever legalese that is required to convey that thought meets the intent here. There are some so-called contractual requirements that PIP thinks should become a part of the Standard. We unabashedly made our desires known. If API can live with those choices, it will reduce the amount of out of Standard wording that will have to be added to each Purchase Order or our greatly abbreviated Practice. The last sentence is an attempt to “head off” misunderstandings that often arise with the work or products supplied by subcontractors to the Manufacturer. From a Purchaser’s perspective, it often appears that subcontractors are unaware of or ignore many of the Purchaser’s requirements. The Manufacturer has the responsibility for compliance with the Purchaser’s requirements even if supplied by someone else. 1.3.3 Affirmative (Hendrix) – By defining both Purchaser and Manufacturer and then distributing responsibility for obtaining permits between them, this would include permits obtained by agents and subcontractors. The lined through paragraph D will most likely remain in the PIP practice since our approach was to put the almost always asked for aspects of a purchase in a common place to cut down on commercial verbiage. 1.3.5 Affirmative (Hendrix) – “Applicable industry design and safety standards and codes” is intended to capture compliance dictated by jurisdictional authorities such as building codes, process safety management, RCRA, 1910.106, OSHA, EPA, etc. or Purchaser site workplace safety rules. 1.3.6 Affirmative (Hendrix) – The intent here is simple: if the Manufacturer perceives that there are conflicting Purchaser’s requirements, then advising the Purchaser of this conflict and awaiting a negotiated settlement is prudent. If the Manufacturer doesn’t recognize that there is a conflict, he can’t be faulted, but the Purchaser’s opinion of the Manufacturer’s expertise might be questioned. 1.4 Negative (Hendrix) – Definition of Manufacturer: Consistent with the main body of API 650, there must be only ONE Manufacturer who is ultimately responsible for compliance with the Standard and the Purchaser’s requirements. Call them the TANK MANUFACTURER or some other term if necessary, but this would make for a lot of unnecessary editing. Every other supplier of materials, services, or products can be identified by some other term as needed. For example, roof supplier, shop fabricator, foundation contractor, erector, platform supplier, X-subcontractor, co-entrepreneur, etc.

1

1.6.2 Affirmative (Hendrix) – How vexing it is to receive a quote for a proposed purchase that doesn’t comply with the specification. If a Manufacturer has a better idea, then this should be detailed in an ALTERNATE. I asked for what I thought was the best set of requirements. Humor me by telling how you’d meet them and then if you want to suggest what maybe I should have asked for, proceed. 1.6.2 Affirmative (Hendrix) – 2. PIP requires the use of its Data Sheet. If API essentially adopts PIP Data Sheet, then the API Appendix L data sheet should become mandatory. The linking of the Data Sheet with the specification is done expressly in the original PIP document. 1.6.2 C Affirmative (Hendrix) – If the Manufacturer orders materials incorrectly or with inappropriate dimensions, he should have no right to cry foul, if later rejected by the Purchaser. This is fundamental. I don’t like to be surprised by plate substituted for a forging; or a narrow plate coil, shop welded to make a decent height shell course; or homemade flanges when I asked for B16.47. Maybe there needs to be an intermediate set of general arrangement drawings that would cover these issues before the material is purchased but before all details are known. 1.6.5 Affirmative (Hendrix) – 1. “Certified Final Prints” are as-built drawings that Manufacturers provide stating explicitly on the drawing that they attest to its correctness as showing what was constructed. It is signed by a company officer, adjacent to the statement. 1.6.6 Affirmative (Hendrix) – The intent is not to seek detailed access to proprietary computer programs, but an attempt by knowledgeable Purchasers to have Manufacturers provide details of methods used when there are no published design by rules or where obscure criteria such as found in API 650 3.6.5, 3.7.8.6, 3.8.2, 3.9.6.3, 3.10.2.7, and M.2 are used. Purchasers want Manufacturers to use justifiable engineering methods that they can accept. Whenever API 650 requires a Manufacturer to select a thickness of a component or assembly such that it doesn’t see excessive stress, or doesn’t buckle or become crippled, or doesn’t sink, etc., the Purchaser should expect to be shown calculations or test results justifying the design even if that design is based on design methodology by AISC, ASCE, or whomever. Such engineering justification should be presented. 1.6.7 Affirmative (Hendrix) – 6. What were the nominal thicknesses for components bought by the Manufacturer from mills, jobbers, etc.? Sometimes this is available from the material test reports or certificates of compliance, but not always. It can become important information for API 653 evaluation later and especially in ascertaining corrosion rates.

2

1.6.7 Affirmative (Hendrix) – 18. Put these notes on the Manufacturer’s drawings since they will be the drawings or record so that they will stand out to maintenance personnel just like DO NOT STEP markings. I’ve never seen a maintenance manual for a tank. If such a thing were provided, putting the warnings in there would be acceptable. 3.1.6.2 Affirmative (Hendrix) – The statement here applies to all kinds of welds, not just shell-to-bottom fillet welds as stated in 3.1.5.7.c. 3.3.2 Affirmative (Hendrix) – It is up to the Purchaser to ascertain what surfaces of the tank should have extra material to provide for potential corrosion/erosion. It should be made clear as to which surface the corrosion allowance is to be applied and how thick it is. It is to be understood that “structural” as used herein refers to prismatic shapes (angles, flanged beams, channels, tees, columns, bars, etc). For example, a roof plate may require an inside surface allowance of 1/32” while it may be deemed that the internal rafters may be mill run dimensions without a prescribed allowance. 3.6.1.3 Affirmative (Hendrix) – PIP desires that shell thickness be calculated as if liquid could be to the shell-to-roof joint regardless of what one states the design liquid level to be. If it could possibly be accidentally overfilled for whatever reason, the shell should be capable of handling the fluid. One might change service and plug the overflow slots. Who knows why this might happen, but it is often so. Why limit the utility of the tank unnecessarily? 3.10.2.2 Affirmative (Hendrix) – Whenever the external pressure task team brings their product on board, it is hoped that they will have addressed this issue. If the load combination item has not addressed this in the interim, they should. We should not have conflicting requirements, but we should make certain that the issue is resolved earlier or simultaneously with the adoption of this item. 3.7.4.5 Affirmative (Hendrix) - In general, a “commentary policy” might consider moving other similar issues back into Appendix L and deeming them “instructional” or “tickler verbiage” to highlight things that might have less than obvious consequences that are “hidden” in the text body. 3.12 Negative (Hendrix) – All this may be of value, but is not of PIP origin. 5.2.5 Affirmative (Hendrix) – The PIP users community wanted their tanks hydrostatically tested and they felt that more issues needed to be addressed than were currently discussed in the Standard. The settlement interruption is included so that if something were grossly wrong with the supporting soil, a rational decision as to what to do could be arrived at. 5.3.5.2.2 2. Affirmative (Hendrix) – See Hendrix comments on 3.7.4.5.

3

4

5.3.6.1 a. Negative (Hendrix) – Use “bubble” rather than “soap”. C.3.8.2 Affirmative (Hendrix) – Substitute “outer flotation compartment” for “outer pontoon rim”. F.7.1 Affirmative (Hendrix) – I don’t believe this has a PIP origin, but it is logical. Rather than as proposed, have it say “….for determining required thickness of all other pressure bearing components below the liquid level,….” F.7.2 Affirmative (Hendrix) – This “commentary” was moved here by the task team from the “instruction” portion of Appendix L, line 11, Fixed Roof Weld Joint Description that provides guidance for those completing the Data Sheets. In general, a “commentary policy” might consider moving other similar issues back into Appendix L and deeming them “instructional” or “tickler verbiage” to highlight things that might have less than obvious consequences that are “hidden” in the text body. F.4.3, F.6, F.7.4, F.7.5, and F7. 7 Negative (Hendrix) – These are not of obvious PIP origin and so their basis is unknown. G.8.3, G.8.4, and G11.2 Negative (Hendrix) – These are not of obvious PIP origin and so their justification is unknown. H.4.1.3 Negative (Hendrix) – This isn’t what PIP said. H.4.1.6 Affirmative (Hendrix) – Electrical bonding should be provided between elements separated by dielectrics such as non-conductive gaskets. H.6.3 Affirmative (Hendrix) – See Hendrix comments on 1.4. H.6.4 Affirmative (Hendrix) – Reduces the likelihood of components that might sink in a field test or be hard to field repair. Field test of assembly shows fitness for service. Appendix H Affirmative (Hendrix) – Move all instruction for how to fill out Data Sheets to Appendix L. L.4.1 Affirmative (Hendrix) – The two-way form concept helps both the Purchaser and Manufacturer maintain the record of agreed to technical options in a compact format. A formal way of designating changes in addition to dated, dual signatories must be developed.