Minutes of Meeting

ISO 15156 Maintenance Panel

Chair: Greg Chitwood

1. Call to order by Greg Chitwood

Greg asked for “show of hands” for all MP members and 11 members were counted.

2. 15156 Inquiries

2008-01 inquiry – The response to this question, formulated by the chair and vice chair, was drafted
and distributed without formal input from the MP. Rich Thompson inquired about his email on this
inquiry. Part one of inquiry 2008-01 dealt with carbon steels that are not listed in table A.2. This
inquiry asked about whether materials not shown in table A.2 require “qualification”. Rich felt the
response indicated that the non A.2 listed materials did require SSC testing. Rich stated that A.2 is
not a complete list of acceptable materials and it was not the intent of the standard to require that all
materials not listed in A.2 must undergo SSC testing. John Martin noted that “qualification” does
not necessarily mean SSC testing and that hardness testing is a form of qualification. Greg read
portions of part 2 of this inquiry, which asked about the need to perform SSC testing on each order
of the same grade. The MP reply was that additional SSC testing was not required for steels listed
in table A.2. Derek Williams stated that materials not listed in the tables should not be considered
“qualified” solely because they have passed manufacturing acceptance testing and that the first few
lines in annex B hold the key to the issue of qualification.

The chair noted that several other inquiries, some from 2007, would need to be handled soon.
Some inquiries go beyond the interpretation of the text of ISO 15156, i.e. those requiring the
services of a consultant, and these will not be answered by the MP. Greg also brought up the
need to add a new MP member, preferably from someone out the US or Europe.

3. Status of ballots

Greg stated that there was only one new ballot in 2008, the ballot on new limits for alloy 945.
Although the ballot passed, there were a few Oversight Committee (OSC) negatives. It was
decided that attempts would be made to satisfy the points raised by these negative ballots.
Sarwan Mannan and Brian Chambers were invited to give a presentation on this effort. One of the
issues was the chloride concentration and the mg/l vs. ppm conversion and the effect of density on
this conversion at high salt concentrations.

Karol Skzlarz stated that he voted negative since it appeared that the ballot was revised after it had
been submitted by Honeywell and approved by the MP but before it was submitted to the OSC. He
proposed that the ballot should have been returned to the originator for revision and resubmitted to
the MP for approval prior to forwarding on to the OSC. Greg stated that the revision was editorial
(rather than technical) and that was the reason for omitting the proposed additional steps.
Greg returned to the chloride conversion error in the ballot and proposed the MP consider voting on
correcting this ballot to raise the chloride content from 120 000 to 139 000 and 150 000 to 180 000.

1
Gerdt Wilkin asked how this correction would impact other potential errors in some of the tables in
15156. No one was sure whether this error affected existing tables for these and/or other alloys.
Derek Milliams stated the problem stems from 2003 and that ISO requires mg/l and that ppm and
weight percent are not allowed. Ultimately it was agreed that the correction of chloride conversion
should not be implemented in the current 945 ballot but will be addressed as a blanket correction for
all applicable tables at the same time. A task group was selected to make a recommendation for
correction of the chloride problem. Carlo Malara, Greg Chitwood, Derek Milliams, Brian Chambers,
Phil Dent, Bob Badrak and a representative for Titanium Engineers. Bill Bailey suggested that the
task group be given a well defined charge. Derek proposed that accurate conversion of balloted
lab test data into mg/l, to aid field application of the limits.
Rich Thompson suggested three actions for the items for task group:

• How to convert lab test data to mg/l

Thierry Cassagne added “How to clarify the document” to make sure the document is clearly
understood.

Ed Wade offered that this correction should also consider that “weight” should be replaced by
“mass” (“Weight went out some years ago”).

Dr. Ueda also voted negative on the alloy 945 ballot and was also granted an opportunity to make a
presentation on the basis on his negative ballot (presentation is posed with these minutes). The
minimum test duration for nickel alloys is, per the standard, one month. Dr. Ueda argued that 1
month is inadequate for nickel based alloys due the longer time required to incubate localized
corrosion. Dr. Ueda proposed the need to specify different test durations for different material
families and different test methods. For nickel alloys, Ueda recommended a 6 month test duration
for C-ring constant strain and I month for creviced C-ring specimens. Slow strain rate tests can be
used for comparing susceptibility.

Derek stated that a change to the standard on minimum test duration, etc. may have significant
consequences. For example, comparison of new alloys to older, but similar alloys balloted (and
less restricted in the standard) based on shorter duration testing. Derek suggested that it may be
wise to continue to leave it to the user to require longer test durations when necessary. Bob
Badrak also argued against mandatory long term testing for nickel alloys saying, often the actual
testing environment is significantly more severe than the application and the 6 months test is not
compatible with most well completion schedules. John Martin stated that we should keep in mind
that requiring 6 month testing for qualification of new materials being balloted into the standard is
not the same as performing fitness for purpose testing for a specific project and that shorter tests
(e.g. SSRT, creviced c-ring) remain as options. Several people suggested that recommendations
on testing duration would be better placed in TM0177 which would then allow removal of all testing
details from 15156. Chris Fowler proposed that it would take many years to get a new TM0177
revision through NACE. Chris suggested that this information could potentially be fast tracked
through EFC and published in EFC 17 in ~18 months.

Rashmi Bhavsar proposed that Sumitomo develop a 15156 ballot for the nickel alloy testing duration
change. Ardjan Kopuliku added that supporting data would need to be included to support that
pass/fail results are significantly influenced by longer duration testing. Dr. Ueda said he would
need a volunteer to assist in developing this ballot. Rashmi (and possibly John Martin) volunteered
to assist. Joel Russo stated that, if the ballot does not provide data confirming that existing alloys
tested/balloted with shorter term testing fail when tested for the proposed longer exposure times,
there would be a lot of negative ballot votes.

Greg asked the group if the ballot as it is currently being discussed would be likely to pass.
Several in the audience indicated “no”.

2
4. Status of Action Items from New Orleans

Allowable cold work in 316 austenitic stainless steels – Russ Kane reviewed 15156 and literature
regarding cold work. The final recommendation was to delete the reference to “cold work designed
to enhance mechanical properties”. The 2nd phase of the proposal was to leave the maximum
hardness at 22 HRC. Derek Milliams cautioned about removing all reference to cold work and
suggested referring to incidental cold work. Tim Haeberle noted cold formed hex bar at less than
22 HRC still has a lot of cold work. Greg noted that some “1/4 hard” materials were found to be
less than 22 HRC. Bill Bailey suggested waiting until the testing program being conducted by Jim
Dufour was completed since this would provide laboratory SSC performance vs. levels of cold work
and hardness. Bob Badrak offered to supply some data on cold work vs. SSC. Bob also
cautioned that changing to only 22 HRC max. as the only restrictions on cold work may tempt
someone to design based on 90 ksi MYS 316. The discussion then briefly covered on a number of
papers that provided SSC lab data on annealed and cold worked 316. The task group will also
need to consider that this paragraph of the document applies to any component, stressed in any
orientation, in H2S environments up to 15 psia. Removing reference to “intentional” or “incidental”
will permit both compressive and tensile cold work.

5. Alloy Families

Thierry Cassagne talked about the work needed on this issue. He recommended that austenitic
stainless steels section needs to be revised to separate alloys based on elements such as
chromium, molybdenum and nitrogen. For the super austenitic, 3A and 3B, a clearer picture is
provided on chemistry contribution. For the duplex stainless steels, there are three groups: lean,
std. and super DSS but they not differentiated in the standard. Thierry proposed the need to
develop boundaries for these sub groups using both PREN and important alloying elements for
environmental cracking. For nickel alloys the picture seems in better shape but may also need to
be reviewed. Thierry acknowledged that the martensitic stainless need the most work. A number
of people have worked on this but clear boundaries are difficult to agree on. There is a huge
amount of data that needs to be evaluated with respect to the least resistant alloy in the sub family.
Perry Nice asked if family groupings in other ISO documents will be considered or used. Thierry
stated they would be adopted only if they are consistent with grouping based on corrosion
performance rather than simple metallurgy as in ISO 13680.

The intent is to simplify the document by using family tables rather than individually listing each alloy.
However, every time an alloy manufacturer ballots an individual alloy to a more severe temperature,
pH, or chloride level, we move back toward individual alloys with limits and away from “families” with
limits. Rich noted that there is nothing in the document defining how alloys in families must be
balloted. For those balloting new limits for an alloy in a family table, Bill Bailey wished they would
also include the lowest alloy from the table in the laboratory testing. This would confirm that the
limits of only the balloted alloy, not the entire family, should be revised. Bill acknowledged this is
not likely to happen. Rich Thompson stated that he had a vision of the future and it is “very big
tables”. Derek stated that, in the future, the performance data base should solve this problem.
This topic was closed by Thierry requesting volunteers to work on revision to the families and
balloting rules. Bill Bailey and Hervé Marchebois agreed to work with Thierry. It was suggested
to contact people who had defined alloy families in the document.

6. Experimental work on 316 stainless steel weld and base metal

Stuart Bond provided a presentation summarizing a TWI JIP on welded 316/316L tested in
simulated formation water and condensed water (presentation is posed with these minutes). A
ballot will be proposed based on the results.

7. Several topics were postponed till the TG299 meeting after lunch

3
 • Derek Milliams discussion of minor revisions to Parts 1, 2, and 3.
• The hardness conversion topic brought up by Joel Russo.

8. Next Meeting

The next MP meeting will be on Sunday, March 22, 2009 at 8:00AM in Atlanta. The meeting room
will be announced prior to Corrosion 2009.

9. Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at noon.