MR 0103 ( Materials Resistant to Sulfide Stress Cracking in Corrosive non-oil field Petroleum Refining Environments ) is very categorically specified PQR Test specimen as stringent validation simulator for in-service MOC implementations. The hardness traverse requirement, PQR Heat input, Ferrite Number, Thickness aspects are very tight here. As MR-0175 has been long followed even in downstream non-oilfield Refinery and Petroleum Inspection application , the trend still exits in many industries. Also the "Ni-effect to SSC in CS & LAS MOC" has been waived out in MR-0103 w.r.t. application of 2 1/2 % Ni steel in wet sour service. Q1. Is there any industry ( Refining, Petrochem, non-oil field downstream ) failure case built which has been proved/ concluded to be due to non-application of MR-0103 practice guidances ? Q2. Are the 3rd party Inspectors/ Surveillance/ Auditor are doing full justice so far as application & implementation of MR-0103 is concerned ? Experts/ licensors/ academicians/ inspectors are requested to share their knowledge/experiences for common benefit. please. regards

Debasis On Question 1: my views are: Krish is right that MR 0175 is now ISO 15156 Part I, II, III. Krish has also correctly pointed out that MR 0103 is stringent for Oil Production wells and gas production where new MR 0103 guideline has to be applied and followed in a stricter sense. For down stream of Oil production - including refineries where sulphur content (H2S) is specified - stringency needs will not be the same as for Oil production and well platforms. IS specification limit if followed by indian refineries may not give any problem if MR 0175 guideline is adopted or followed during purchase inspections. Indian refinery - i.e, ppm limit for S if followed - as per IS specification in Crude Oil processed (whether imported or domestic is well laid) MR 0175 is good enough. Possibility of MR 0103 guideline application does not or may not arise. The same applies to downstream petro-chemical plant like Haldia petro chem. For Crude oil refined to IS specification MR 0175 limits for hardness for CS / Low alloy Steel (with low or upto 1% Ni addition) if followed may not give any problem to the user. This is industry experience in India. On Question 2: my views are: Licensors mostly adopt the current regulatory needs on these and also the most mandatory code or standard practices only while specifiying for purchase or for major contract deals. For any order, III Party inspection needs is governed by purchaser order specification to the vendor by the client. if the client or vendors have agreed on compromise at the time of order or do not insist on these, inspection companies may not insist on compliance of the needs - even if they know fully the implications in such omissions in P.O. At best, a knowledgeable inspection company can point out the deficiency in such P.O agreed between vendor and client. If client does not respond or does not insist on revision in P.O. then inspection needs will have to be tailor made to the compromise already agreed upon between vendor and client. The blame or implication of such omissions will be borne by the client and vendor and not by inspector or inspection company. If MR 0103 or MR 0175 is specified in P.O, III Party inspection will have to do the inspection and stage wise compliance needs have to meet to the requirements for the same. Most III Party inspection companies - if and those who are well wersed and follow ethical quality inspection with application of code practices and specific purchase requirements of standards like MR 0103 or MR 0175 in P.O of the same will have to follow the stringency requirements certainly. If due to ignorance or non application of such requirement needs are by-passed, by either individual inspector or the vendor or by client (not insisting on these), i guess it may be by exception and not as a general rule followed by knowledgeable and ethical quality inspectors or inspection companies. It is critical or imperative that the client chooses a well qualified and ethical background inspection companies for doing inspection for such critical P.O. needs. Question often arises : Do all clients follow this ? Do all clients and their purchase and technical personnel think about this from over-all problem solving in the long run for their own operational and maintenance related problem ofmisses in specifications for problems related to SCC which will certain crop up? These questions if answered by the client, themselves, apportioning the blame on licensors or III Party inspectors will not arise (to my mind). Survillance or Audit forms a part of an operating company of licensed process and delivered equipment to the needs and requirements of P.O.. The audit does not come at the purchase order or purchase inspection periods. Hope this helps C.V.Srinivasan Nishi Engineers Pvt Ltd India Sept 08, 2007 E-mail: nishi@vsnl.com >MR 0103 ( Materials Resistant to Sulfide Stress Cracking in >Corrosive non-oil field Petroleum Refining Environments ) >is very categorically specified PQR Test specimen as >stringent validation simulator for in-service MOC >implementations. The hardness traverse requirement, PQR Heat >input, Ferrite Number, Thickness aspects are very tight >here. As MR-0175 has been long followed even in downstream >non-oilfield Refinery and Petroleum Inspection application , >the trend still exits in many industries. Also the >"Ni-effect to SSC in CS & LAS MOC" has been waived out in >MR-0103 w.r.t. application of 2 1/2 % Ni steel in wet sour >service. > >Q1. Is there any industry ( Refining, Petrochem, non-oil >field downstream ) failure case built which has been proved/ >concluded to be due to non-application of MR-0103 practice >guidances ? > >Q2. Are the 3rd party Inspectors/ Surveillance/ Auditor are >doing full justice so far as application & implementation of >MR-0103 is concerned ? > >Experts/ licensors/ academicians/ inspectors are requested >to share their knowledge/experiences for common benefit. >please. >regards