making sense of mtr turnover rev 2

Making Sense of MTR Turnover

Roy O. Christensen, RET

Christensen Qualityworks Inc.

20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016


Outline

• Material Test Reports (MTRs) defined

• The problems with costs vs. benefits

• Mandatory vs. EPC project requirements

• Comparison to automotive industry

• Recommended best practices

• Conclusion



• A MTR may look like this (if you are lucky)



• Material Test Report (MTR) or certificate– Documents material QA (e.g., metals)

– States compliance to Standards (e.g., ASTM/ASME)

– Certifies chemical and physical properties

• It is believed that MTRs must be turned over to the owner-user (OU), but it’s untrue!!!– EPC projects may require everything (e.g., pressure,

containment, rotating, structural, and other equipment)!

– Manufacturing Record Books (MRB) or Vendor Data Books (VDB) may contain 1,000s of pages or MBs



• MTR turnover for EPC (and any other) project

– Is usually not required and has limited usefulness

– Increases costs but does not always add value

– Consumes valuable project resources

– Is poorly understood by OUs & EPCs



• It is possible to

– Reduce cost and eliminate headaches!

– Maintain quality and technical requirements!



• Why MTR turnover is problematic

– Compiling, copying, formatting, submitting, reviewing, correcting, and archiving takes many hands and person/hours

– Costs are incurred by suppliers, EPCs, and OUs

– Data that is never used or discarded is wasteful

– Neither quality nor safety is enhanced by massive data turnover

– Critical data may be lost or missing (e.g., Manufacturing Data Reports [MDRs]!)



• Why MTR turnover is problematic, cont’d

– MTRs may be reviewed several times during

manufacturing (e.g., purchasing, receiving,

material selection, and QC)

– Review may be basic (e.g., type, thickness, or size)

– Review may be detailed (e.g., carbon equivalence,

hardness, or notch toughness)

– During manufacturing QMPs require material

identification (e.g., heat number, code, or colour)



• Why MTR turnover is problematic, cont’d



• Once a product is produced through a QMP

and has met all quality and technical

requirements, it is fit for service

• Material info and record is also provided by

– MTRs on demand from manufacturer or supplier

– Material markings (where visible or recorded)

– Technical drawings, data sheets, and catalogues

– The MDR (i.e., the critical turnover document!)



• O&G Acts, Codes, Regulations, and Standards have very few specific turnover requirements

• Of 32 documents reviewed (see Table 1)

– Five had references for mandatory turnover (e.g., only specific materials or services including one that only stated “obtain certification records”)

– Of those, only one had mandatory requirements for traceability (i.e., ASME B&PV Sec. VIII Div. 2)

– Eight had recommended or “if specified” (e.g., optional) requirements



• An ABSA Pressure News article* stated that

– Requirements may be driven by quality management programs (QMPs) or others – NOT by Code or ABSA

– Obtaining, storing, and copying MTRs costs money

– MTRs may not be available for off-the-shelf items

• So where do MTR turnover requirements originate (hint: EPCs)?

* “Material Test Reports” Volume 1 Issue 2 1996



• How EPC projects specify MTR turnover

– EPC Purchase Orders (POs) for bulks, packaged,

and other equipment may use a simple check box

– Check “yes” for conservatism and previous

practice or quality mantra (e.g., document

everything)



• There are several “Catch 22s” in EPC work processes

– OU relies on EPC expertise vs. EPC relies on OU Specs

– Engineering sees only technical vs. procurement sees only cost: no benefit

– MTRs are also seen as a quality or inspection dept. issue, but no input is obtained upfront

– MTRs may be available, but for additional cost and/or time, especially for non-standard supply



• EPC work processes issues

– Most OU Specs provide direction for technical requirements, but not for MTR turnover

– MTR turnover will be subject to PO interpretation by supply chain (e.g., manufacturer’s standard)

– Adding MTR requirements after PO award will result in cost adders

– Eliminating MTR requirements after PO award will not result in any cost savings

– Having a correct MTR does not guarantee that the material was used correctly



• EPC work processes issues, cont’d

– Focus on issuing POs, then equipment deliveries, so turnover problems are identified too late!

– Bulk materials and packaged equipment are often treated differently (e.g., PSDs)

– Supplier vs. project purchased (i.e., free-issued) items are often treated differently

– Materials and equipment vs. consumables are often treated differently (e.g., fasteners and welds)



• EPC work processes issues, cont’d



• Automotive industry comparison

– Engineered and manufactured for safe and efficient use (e.g., $20K - $100K)

– Produced with materials, parts, testing, and inspections to meet specified standards

– Provided with OEM and after-market warrantees with remedies for failure

– Manufactured with load-bearing, rotating, and flammable or pressure containing metal parts



• Automotive industry data turnover

– Additional cost and delay for delivery with MTRs

or certificates of compliance (COCs)

– If MTRs could be obtained where would these be

stored and how could these be used?



• Best practises for MTR turnover– Establish specific stakeholder needs (see Table 2)

– Prepare a Spec or project instruction for MTRs

– Include technical notes in POs to detail needs

– Identify if traceability is acceptable in lieu of MTRs

– Review manufacturer QMPs and record keeping

– Use third party inspectors (TPIs) effectively

– Use material markings effectively

– Request MTRs only for final turnover

– Request only digital turnover



• Best practices for MTR turnover, cont’d

– Avoid turnover of turnover for free issued items

– Obtain MRB/VDB Index for review in advance

– Use Positive Material Identification (PMI)



• PMI is a game-changer!!!

– PMI analyses a metallic alloy to establish

constituent elements

– MTRs are a verification of the material when it is

produced

– PMI can be performed on materials & welds

during manufacturing and also in-service

– Hand-held units are now readily available &

affordable



• PMI is a game changer, cont’d

– MTRs may be obtained and reviewed by the

supplier’s QC and the TPI to ensure that the

proper materials are used

– Upon completion, a PMI survey could identify all

parts as correct with an equipment-specific report

– Turnover could consist of a few pages instead of

thousands of pages or MBs of data



• Conclusion

– MTR requirements are poorly understood

– Many dollars are wasted for unnecessary MTRs

– MTRs are not a panacea to validate quality for

everything

– Many best practises are easily implemented, in

particular use of hand-held PMI


Acknowledgement

Michael A. Ell reviewed and provided input for this presentation. He is a First Class Power

Engineer with API 510/570/571/653/580, CWB/CSA W178.2 Level 3, CRM, FRM, and NB AIS

certifications, as well as a NB commission.

This presentation was based on an article by Roy O. Christensen that was published in

LinkedIn Pulse on July 7, 2015 with the title “MTR Turnover--What is it Good For? Absolutely

Nothin’!.” See it at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/mtr-turnover-what-good-absolutely-

nothin-roy-christensen-ret.


Roy O. Christensen is an integrity specialist with Christensen Qualityworks Inc., providing

consulting services for coordinating, developing, and leading quality and integrity

management programs for the manufacturing, construction, and in-service use of

structural, pressure, and packaged equipment.

Since 1991 Roy’s experience has included oil sands and O&G projects with Amec Foster

Wheeler and Bantrel, PEIM programs, O&G and infrastructure projects with Acuren,

construction projects with TransCanada, and shop fabrication with other O&G clients. His

roles have included SQS and inspection team leader, QA/QC manager, and visual inspector.

Prior to 1991 he was a NDE technician and pressure welder.

His technical writing has included many instructions, plans, and specifications for EPC

projects, and he has published several articles on the topics of FAT, NDE, quality, and

welding. He is a Registered Engineering Technologist (RET) who holds current certifications

as a CWB Level 3 welding inspector, API 510 pressure vessel inspector, and ABSA in-service

pressure vessel inspector.
