Date post: | 11-Apr-2017 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | roy-christensen-ret |
View: | 301 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
Roy O. Christensen, RET
Christensen Qualityworks Inc.
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
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
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
• A MTR may look like this (if you are lucky)
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
• 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
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
• 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
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
• It is possible to
– Reduce cost and eliminate headaches!
– Maintain quality and technical requirements!
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
• 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]!)
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
• 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)
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
• Why MTR turnover is problematic, cont’d
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
• 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!)
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
• 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
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
• 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
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
• 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)
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
• 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
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
• 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
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
• 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)
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
• EPC work processes issues, cont’d
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
• 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
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
• 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?
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
• 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
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR 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)
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
• 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
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
• 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
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
• 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
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
Making Sense of MTR Turnover
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
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.
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016
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.
20th Annual Conference - Banff 2016