Playing the Valve Standards Game

Imagine driving down the highway and seeing two different speed limit signs side by side. Which do you adhere to, especially in light of the fact that ignorance of the law is no excuse! This analogy is similar to what the PVF industry faces today: Which standard do you pick when multiple standards exist for the same product or procedure?

Twenty-five years ago, the valve world was regulated by the many American-produced valve standards. Although other national standards organizations in countries such as Great Britain, Germany and Japan existed, their influence was nowhere near that of the American Petroleum Institute (API), American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Manufacturers Standardization Society of the Valve & Fitting Industry (MSS), and other red, white and blue standards development groups.

However, as the scope of domestic U.S. manufacturing has narrowed, the influence of non-U.S. standards development organizations has broadened, most notably in the form of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Today, somewhat of a clash exists between the traditional U.S. standards and the emerging strength of ISO’s valve standards. The result is an uneasy truce as the world’s process industries and valve manufacturers sort out which valve standards they want to follow.

BACKGROUND OF U.S. VALVE STANDARDS

United States valve standards have a long history, dating back to the first quarter of the 20th century. The first standard to make reference to valves was the Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, published by ASME in 1915. Although it did not go into detail on design, this boiler document referenced safety relief valves. The creation of MSS in 1924 opened the door for a number of additional valve-related standards, beginning with the organization’s first document on radiator valves in 1925. In fact, MSS created most valve-related standards from the 1920s until WWII.

In 1939, the American Standards Association (ASA) published the first edition of B16e, a document that would later morph into ASME’s B16.34, Valves, Flanged, Threaded and Welding End, which is the still the most popular valve design standard in use today. API published its first refinery valve standard in 1949, with the initial edition of API 600, API Standard on Flanged and Welding End Steel Wedge-Gate and Plug Valves for Refinery Use. This standard has been revised many times and is still very much in use, although its title has changed to Bolted Bonnet Steel Gate Valves for Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries.

Since the 1940s, U.S. valve standards activity has boomed with dozens of documents created by all the major standards-making bodies, plus additional offerings by relative newcomers to the valve standard scene—The Instrument Society of America (ISA) and the American Water Works Association (AWWA).

Until about 1990, American valve standards were the unchallenged leader worldwide. But as the domestic American valve manufacturing base began to erode, the previously unopposed dominance of American valve standards was challenged. The emergence of huge new markets in the Far East, as well as new manufacturers springing up worldwide, resulted in a cry for valve standards that were more international in flavor, which meant primarily ISO-created documents.

NOT CREATED EQUAL

It might seem logical that all standards would be created the same way, but that is not the case.

U.S. API valve standards, for example, are created by groups of end-users, manufacturers, engineer/contractors and occasionally government agency representatives. Content is debated at subcommittee and committee meetings, and a diverse group of interested parties vote on the documents. As a result of this process, a dozen refinery representatives, 20 manufacturers and/or a handful of engineer/contractors may be deciding on the content of the document.

The ISO standards creation process also involves committees and subcommittees, but a huge difference is that each country only has one vote. This system creates complex politics that transcend those of the usual manufacturer vs. end-user battles. It also makes it much more difficult for each individual company’s voice to be heard.

About 15 years ago, the API began a process and a policy in which the organization would allow key valve standards to be co-branded by ISO, with the hope that international voters would agree to accept the API documents with little change. During this period, members of U.S. standards organizations were asked to participate in ISO standards activities, but for undefined reasons, there was little response. U.S. companies may have been constrained financially by employers from attending the costly around-the-world meetings or they may have just not considered the work important enough since they were working on the same types of standards here in the U.S.

Unfortunately, in many cases, the resulting co-branded documents were so radically changed they were not acceptable to members of the API refining committee that created the base documents. The result was cumbersome appendices added to the end of the co-branded documents to meet the requirements of the domestic API members and users of the documents. An additional problem occurred because the updating cycle of ISO did not match up with API’s five-year update cycle, making it difficult to provide timely technical updates to the API standards.

Within API, the Subcommittee on Piping and Valves (SCOPV), which produces and maintains many key valve standards used in the refining and petrochemical industry, is responsible for maintaining 12 standards, three of which are co-branded as of early 2009 (API 600, 602, 607). Of these, only one, API 607, Fire Test for Soft-Seated Quarter-Turn Valves, is identical to the ISO version. Current API policy allows for acceptance of an ISO document when, according to a recent API SCOPV statement, “it meets the needs of the API revision and no technical change to the ISO document is required. The full API SCOPV then votes on the proposed co-branded document.

When an API task force determines that a prospective co-branded document would require extensive technical changes, the standard will not be co-branded. “However, changes will be offered to the appropriate ISO workgroup for future consideration, in the hope that successful incorporation of these changes into a future ISO standard revision will allow for reconsideration for co-branding at the next API standard update cycle.”

The current system of different standards-making organizations creating duplicate valve standards is not likely to end in the near future. In fact, two previously co-branded API documents, 600 & 602, are in revision now, and they will not be co-branded. What that means for the valve industry is that companies must be flexible and ready to adapt to whichever standard is specified. In the case of Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) with plants and customers worldwide, this situation is, at best, a hassle. It can mean having two different designs of the same product just to meet the requirements of a particular specification, resulting in a higher cost for the valve user or reduced profit for the manufacturer.

On the upstream side of API, ISO has co-branded API 6D, Pipeline Valves, as ISO 14313. This is one case where a U.S. valve standard was adopted for use in the United States with virtually no changes or extensive addendums.

In the area of corrosion prevention, ISO has co-branded NACE International’s highly popular NACE MR01-75 document. NACE and ISO jointly sell the new, expanded ISO 15156, Petroleum and natural gas industries—Materials for use in H2S-containing environments in oil and gas production. Unfortunately, the three-part, co-branded document is cumbersome and not user-friendly, with eight corrigenda and technical bulletins now required to navigate and use the standard. MR0175 is often referenced when valves in sour H2S upstream service are specified.

Some international valve standards have been more successful in crossing international boundaries intact. For example, the British Standards Institute (BSI), BS 6364, Cryogenic Testing of Valves, has been the primary standard for low-temperature testing for over 25 years. Although other standards-producing bodies have created cryogenic testing documents, the British Standard is still the document most referenced today.

Probably the most visible international influence on U.S. valve specifications has been the nearly universal move to adopt metric units of measurement. In most cases, the imperial units are still listed, but they are secondary to metric units. Sometimes the imperial units are published in appendices or annexes in the back of the document. While the aim of this process is to help metrificate the industrial process industry, it has created a culture where many standards users hang onto old standards (with only the imperial units) so they can easily access the information they need. Old habits are hard to break, especially among the pre-retirement baby-boomers!

TESTING STANDARDS

One area where valve standards are extremely critical is pressure testing. Today, API’s 598, Valve Inspection & Testing, is the most widely recognized standard for this area. However, the ISO document 5208, Industrial Valves—Pressure Testing of Metallic Valves, is gaining popularity throughout the global valve community. ISO 5208 was revised in 2008, and in many ways, is now almost identical to API 598. For pipeline valves, API 6D, Pipeline Valves, has specific testing requirements for valves in pipeline service, including holding times much longer than API 598 and ISO 5208. MSS SP-61 offers an alternative to the API and ISO testing documents for those who manufacture and use products that would not fit the scope of API 6D, API 598 or ISO 5208.

A unique testing document published by the Fluid Control Institute (FCI) is the ANSI-approved, ANSI/FCI 70-2, Control Valve Seat Leakage test specification. This document was initially an ASME document, B16.104. Although aimed primarily at the control valve segment, 70-2 is specified whenever exacting leakage rates are required. FCI/ANSI has six classes of leakage from no testing required (class I) through very tight metal seat (class V) and soft seat (class VI).

While British Standard BS 6364 is still the most popular document that specifies cryogenic testing procedures, others exist and are in use. MSS created a cryogenic valve standard in 2006, SP-134-2006a, Valves for Cryogenic Service Including Requirements for Body/Bonnet Extensions. SP-134 contains cryogenic testing specifications slightly different from those found in the British standard, especially in the area of allowable leakage rates. ISO is creating a third cryogenic valve standard, but it is still in the developmental stage.

Fugitive emissions control has become an important issue in the industrial valve sector, particularly on the refining and petrochemical side. Initially, little guidance existed for quantifying valve fugitive emissions leakage, with only one standard, EPA Method 21, Determination of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks, available as a reference. Method 21 is a specification for measuring leaks in the field and does not apply to valve qualification or production testing prior to installation. Currently five non-company specific documents are in use for valve qualification and production fugitive emissions testing. They are: ISO 15848, Industrial Valves – Measurement, Test and Qualification Procedures for Fugitive Emissions, parts 1 & 2; API 622, Type Testing of Process Valve Packing for Fugitive Emissions; ISA 93.00.01, Standard Method for the Evaluation of External Leakage of Manual and Automated On-Off Valves; FCI/ISA 91.1, Standard for Qualification of Control Valve Stem Seals; and a German specification,Technical Instructions on Air Quality Control, better known as TA Luft. While API 622 is actually a packing evaluation document, it contains a very useful and practical fugitive emissions testing procedure.

Some of the more common valve standards in use today are listed in Table 1.

STANDARDS, UNLIKE BUTTERFLIES, AREN’T FREE

One reality not often mentioned is the cost to produce a valve standard. Since standards are created by volunteers, time spent on standards production is lost time from daily office work. Some conservative figures as to the amount of money that goes into producing a typical valve standard are:

In API, there might be 8 to 10 people on a standards workgroup. Each of these people might spend 30 to 40 hours or more over the course of one to two years in working on details and specific wording. That’s up to 400 hours at a total compensation value of $125 per hour, which is $50,000. Then, the standard is discussed at three or four larger committee meetings. These meetings would be attended by 30 or more voting members for three days—24 hrs x 30 people = 720 hours (or $90,000). Add into that an average per person of $1,500 for transportation, hotel and meals ($45,000) and the value is $135,000 per meeting, with an average of three meetings required to get a standard passed.

If five standards are worked concurrently, the cost of each standard would be $81,000 (calculated based on a cost of $135,000 per meeting x 3 meetings = $405,000, divided by 5 standards = $81,000) for the committee meeting activity. This makes that standard have a value of over $130,000 before a single page is printed. Besides a few ego bruises and a slice or two of humble pie, all a workgroup member receives in return for those 12 to 24 months of participation is a copy of the document when it’s published.

Besides the expense of participation, one problem the standards-making bodies face today is loss of revenue from copyright infringement or in some cases outright theft. Since digital copiers and scanners are so accurate, it’s a given that pages of a standard, or entire standards, are copied and disseminated without authorization. Outright theft comes from dishonest, foreign-based companies that make copies and then sell them over the internet. If you look hard enough, you can find virtually any specification for sale online from both legitimate and illegitimate suppliers. Large-scale bogus sellers of ASTM, ASME and MSS documents have surfaced in South America and Russia. In some cases, the document bandits are difficult to find and prosecute. Still, ASTM recently sued a company in Brazil selling many types of engineering standards, and the company was ordered to stop selling the documents. However, the lawsuit was very costly for ASTM, a fact that has kept other standards-developing organizations from following that lead.

So where is a good legitimate source for the valve standards mentioned in this article? There are several sources, from the organizations themselves, to distributors and even retail bookstores. A list of those is contained in Table 2.

Table 2. Sources for Valve Standards
ANSI—www.ansi.org
IHS—http://engineers.ihs.com
SAI Global—www.ili-info.com
TechStreet—www.TechStreet.com
Brown Book Shop—www.brownbookshop.com

MODERN TIMES

When I attended my first API standards meeting in 1988, everyone wore suits, sport coats and ties. The meetings were very formal and a stenographer took notes. Over the past 20 years, some faces have changed, and neck ties and some of the old-timers have been retired. But although the overall hue of the hair is grayer now, there still is a large contingent of valve professionals that care enough to give back the time and energy that creating valve standards for MSS, ISO, API, ASME and all the other standards-making organizations requires. So, the next time you successfully solve a problem by consulting a valve standard, try to remember the politics, time, sweat and effort that went into its creation.

Greg Johnson is president of United Valve (www.unitedvalve.com), Houston, TX. He is a member of the Board of Directors of MSS, a voting member of the API Committee on Refinery Equipment’s Subcommittee on Piping and Valves, and also serves on an ISO cryogenic valve workgroup. Reach him at greg1950@unitedvalve.com.