Committee on Refinery Equipment November 2010 Update to the Refining Subcommittee Michael Lubcyik, Chevron Energy & Technology Company, Chair, CRE

Purpose/Outcomes Discuss standard revisions with significant impacts – 653 & 520 Report on Petro-Arch Database Project Obtain RSC feedback

Standards Revisions Key Standards Revision – Standard 653, Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction: –A joint Inspection and Tanks subcommittee meeting occurred on January 28 th –The effort developed proposed ballot wording to clarify the inspection intervals in Section 6 of API Standard 653, Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction The current 4 th edition text has led to confusion and compliance concerns

Standards Revisions Key standards revision – Standard 653, Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration, and Reconstruction: The ballot received consensus with 71% response rate (must be > 50%) and 85% approval rate (must be > 67%) The ballot had eight negatives and 91 written comments The comment resolution process led to a second ballot RSC Feedback - Good Engagement by member companies. Keep working toward resolution

Standards Revisions Key standards revision – Standard 653, Tank Inspection, Repair, Alteration and Reconstruction: Update and next steps: RBI Team Members exchange ballot resolution language Language would strengthen RBI process when: –internal inspection intervals exceed 25 and 30 years –release prevention barriers are used Ballot resolution language agreed to and ballot launched Ballot review meeting scheduled for November 15, Chair is working on resolution

Standards Revisions Key Standards Revision – Recommended Practice 520, Sizing, Selection, and Installation of Pressure-Relieving Devices in Refineries—Part II, Installation –Proposed revision is part of regular review and maintenance process –The standard is approaching its procedural review date – 5 years (August 2003) plus two year extension to complete work –The proposed revisions update the standard and include a revision to the safety relief valve section –The initial draft ballot closed March 17

Standards Revisions Key Standards Revision – RP 520, Part II: –The proposed revisions are designed to allow operators greater flexibility on maximum inlet non- recoverable pressure drop for safety relief valves while maintaining safe operations: Current language states that pressure drop should not exceed 3% of the valve set pressure Proposed language states that the “pressure loss…should not exceed 3 percent of the set pressure of the pressure relief valve except as permitted in when supported by an engineering analysis”

Standards Revisions Key standards revision – RP 520, Part II The ballot received consensus with 66% response rate (must be > 50%) and 96% approval rate (must be > 67%) The ballot had one negative from an operator OSHA has provided comments Voters submitted 200 written comments Included in the comment resolution process was an API-OSHA meeting

Standards Revisions Key standards revision – RP 520, Part II Proposed Ballot Resolution Language includes: - Eliminate the words “Engineering Analysis”. Instead use words “if exceed 3%, the following shall….” - Replace “suitable margin relative to the blowdown shall be specified by the User” with “a 2% margin relative to blowdown shall be used” - Limit the inlet pressure drop to a maximum of 5% - Add the requirement to reduce the allowable built- up back pressure on conventional valves, if 3% is exceeded

Standards Revisions Key standards revision – RP 520, Part II Proposed Ballot Resolution Language includes: - Point to API 510 and 576 and require that the User is adhering to these standards as a pre-condition to allowing higher than 3%. - Add a stipulation that exceeding 3% should not be the standard for new systems, except in applications (i.e. low pressure) where the 3% limit is impractical to meet. The Reballot language will be finalized during the RP 520 Part II meeting, and OSHA representative will attend the meeting and comment on the language

Standards Revisions Key standards revision – RP 520, Part II Activities subsequent to RSC meeting materials distribution: -API received OSHA letter November 10 -Letter does not address technical ballot issues but raises concerns regarding the overall API standards process -API is reviewing letter and developing a strategy RSC Feedback – Keep pushing to issue the revised standard. API to develop a response to OSHA letter and Mary Kay Forum. Possible survey of user experience presented to RSC – no direct feedback

Materials Database Project Actions on Materials Database project since the April 2010 Refining Meetings: –API has signed contracts with Project Manager, Contractor, and MPC –“Use Case” analysis has been completed –Software development is 85% complete –Database schema development is 50% complete –Loading of 2.25 Cr-Mo-V data is 50% complete –Goal is to complete work on Pilot Project and be prepared to make recommendation to Refining Subcommittee at Spring 2011 meeting

RSC Feedback The CRE subcommittees plan to ballot, publish and conduct 20 standards actions in 2010 The Refining Subcommittee asked for information regarding significant standards revisions Information will be helpful in conducting coordinated ballot reviews

RSC Feedback Subcommittees report on proposed revisions that could: Incur a significant cost or savings to equipment cost or repair; Require a significant addition or allow for a reduction in engineering effort necessary to design or specify equipment procurement; or Noticeably improve equipment reliability or safety.

RSC Feedback RSC would like to continue to get this type of info on standards The CRE subcommittees have been asked to report this information, and the CRE met with its SC Officers on November 14 to discuss improvements to the process

RSC Feedback Provide updates on standards 653 and 520, Part II Continue to proceed with Materials Database Project Provide update on significant standards revisions They liked our plan developed on Sunday night to discuss one month in advance of meeting