Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference IPC2012 September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

IPC2012-90733

BUILDING AN EFFECTIVE PIPE PROCUREMENT AND MANUFACTURING PROCESS

Alexander J. Afaganis Alliance Pipeline Ltd. Calgary, AB, Canada

Larry Christmas Sire Services Houston, TX, USA

ABSTRACT Over the last 5 years there have been a large number of transmission pipelines installed with much of the pipe procured and manufactured outside of North America - many from non-integrated pipe manufacturers. Over this same period there have been a significant number of pre-operation field hydrostatic testing pipe failures as a consequence of low and variable pipe strength, and chemical composition variations. A strong, structured and effective pipe procurement and manufacturing process following the proven plando-check-act quality assurance model can minimize such issues. Further, such a process can properly manage the inevitable process and product deviations ultimately minimizing project timeline disruptions and reducing project costs. A practical outline of the key features of such a system are discussed from the specification and bid package development through vendor qualification, bid contract review, slab, plate and pipe manufacturing (and the process control documentation and verification), manufacturing surveillance, and follow-up activities. Key words line pipe, procurement process, specification development, vendor qualification, contract review, manufacturing surveillance, quality assurance model

INTRODUCTION The onshore pipeline industry has changed significantly within the last decade resulting from a construction boom in new gas transmission pipelines beginning in 2004, Figure 1.
7000 NewPipeline Construction(km) 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 1: New Pipeline Construction by Year[1] Most of the incremental pipeline growth in 2008 and later has been related to a number of new mega projects. In the years prior to 2007 a project was considered logistically too big if it was between 160 and 480 km in length. Since then there have been a number of mega projects utilizing more than 1600 km of large diameter ( 762 mm OD) pipe. To meet the huge tonnage (up to 1 million tons) of pipe for such 1 Copyright 2012 by ASME

mega projects, multiple supply routes for both skelp/plate and pipe had to be considered to meet the fast-track pipeline construction schedules. Due to the limited North American pipe manufacturing capability at the time and the multiple overlapping mega-projects undertaken over this period, this resulted in the pipe supply from many domestic as well as international suppliers. Further, due to the deintegration of the steel industry over the past 20 years, the traditional integrated steelmaking, hot rolling (plate/skelp) and pipe manufacturing process has been expanded to include non-integrated steel, plate/skelp, and pipe manufacturers. An example of possible supply scenarios based on a 2008-2009 project of the time is given in the Table 1. Table 1: Pipe Supply Scenario for an Example Mega-Project Material Pipe Plate/Skelp Slab Source Supplier Supplier Supplier 1 A 1 a 2 B 2 b 3 C 3 c 4 4 d 5 e 6 D 5 e 7 E 6 f 8 7 g 9 8 h 10 9 i From a pipe manufacturing perspective, this deintegration structurally causes less closely tied quality systems, communication and product development/qualification. From a pipeline company perspective, while the use of such multiple supply routes reduces the risk of delaying the pipe procurement schedule, this can give rise to other challenges. To fully benefit from multiple supply routes during construction, all material should be nominally identical; however within-specification differences in material, mechanical and dimensional properties between suppliers can significantly impact the field construction of pipe. Some of the dimensional issues can include wall thickness, end diameter and out of

roundness tolerances which can cause up to 11.2 mm misalignment during field fit-up.[2] Further, field welding of different pipe suppliers requires separate consideration of the many multiples of material sources. Regulatory issues/findings Since the 1970s, when the United States (US) federal regulatory authority adopted (now ASME) B31.8 code recommendations, a 0.72 maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) gas pipeline design factor has been used in rural areas. After significant research and consideration, in 1973 ASME determined that a 0.80 MAOP design factor was acceptable provided a mill hydrostatic test to 90% of the pipes specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) was completed. ASME instituted this change in the B31.8 code in the 1990 addendum to the 1989 edition where it remains today. Since 1990, Canadian regulations have adopted and industry has been utilizing the 0.80 MAOP factor in its designs with no significant additional requirements. In 2004, the U.S. regulatory authority (PHMSA) announced that maximum MAOP waivers (now special permits) could be granted when pipe condition and active integrity management provide a level of safety greater than or equal to that for new pipe or with a reduced pressure. Following this in 2005 and through 2008, a number of special permits to address MAOP were granted provided additional quality assurance/control, and supplemental integrity measures were instituted. In 2008, PHMSA issued a rule providing the requirements for increasing MAOP for gas transmission pipelines. This rule identified the pipe must have supplementary steelmaking, plate/coil and seam quality control, mill hydrostatic test requirements beyond those specified by API 5L.[3] Since 2005 many of the pipeline projects in the US applied for and were granted special permits to utilize 0.8 factor designs for new and existing pipeline segments based on additional requirements outlined in the final rule. Eligibility requirements in utilizing a 0.8 design require the operator to possess an internal quality 2 Copyright 2012 by ASME

management program with specific control and record requirements related to pipe manufacturing. Such requirements included: control plans for raw material (skelp/plate) manufacturing, fracture control, seam quality, hydrostatic testing and coating, and increased record requirements. Additional construction and maintenance requirements such as increased field hydrostatic test pressures, threat evaluation, emergency plans; corrosion control and integrity management plans were also instituted when applying a special permit waiver. During field construction of special permit cases, increased hydrostatic tests pressures of 100% SMYS, noted material failures associated with low and variable strength pipe as well as various inadequate construction practices. In April 2009, PHMSA hosted a Construction QA/QC workshop and identified a number of pipe manufacturing issues including inadequate sub-supplier qualification, traceability, improper coil process design and control, and inappropriate testing locations. [4] In May 2009, PHMSA issued an advisory bulletin[5] advising operators to review pipe specifications, pipe steelmaking and rolling MPS and pipe mill test reports (including mill hydrostatic tests) to ensure inconsistent mechanical and chemical properties are not inherent in line pipe installed during recent construction. Industry response To address potential weaknesses raised by PHMSA [4] in the US line pipe manufacturing specification (API 5L), API SC5 set up a work group in June 2009. Over the subsequent two years, this work group developed, approved and API published [6] a number of proposed changes to API 5L to address these concerns including: a) Test unit definition expanded to include hot rolling practice; b) Mandatory quality system for steel, coil/plate and pipe; c) Defined, controlled, verified, audited and validated coil/plate rolling practices; d) Qualification of rolling practice deviations; e) Documented procedures for tensile sampling and flattening;

f) Manufacturing Procedure Specification (MPS) annex strengthened for steelmaking, casting, hot rolling, secondary processing and pipe manufacturing; g) Inspection and Test Plan (ITP) requirement added; and h) Strengthened manufacture procedure qualification (MPQ) testing. Over the same time period, the gas industry association (INGAA) sponsored a number of workshops and summits [7 -10] to develop action plans to address these problems. One of these was focused on Best Practices in Line Pipe This Procurement and Manufacturing. [10] workshop identified inconsistencies of procurement and manufacturing practices across the industry from very structured proven systems from mature companies to less structured/proven systems. The goal of this work is to give some examples or recommendations of some idealized best procurement and manufacturing practices. NOMENCLATURE API American Petroleum Institute ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers CSA Canadian Standards Association ITP Inspection and Test Plan INGAA Interstate Natural Gas Association of America MAOP Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure MPQ Manufacturing Procedure Qualification MPS Manufacturing Procedure Specification PHMSA Pipeline Hazardous Material Safety Administration SOP Standard Operating Procedure TPI Third Party Inspector QUALITY PHILOSOPHY Pipe procurement is an important and integral part of the overall pipeline integrity management system. Quality system concepts are outlined in 3 Copyright 2012 by ASME

documents such as ISO 9001 [11] and API Q1 [12] and utilize the following primary components: a) Quality policies, objectives and planning b) Organizational structure including provision of resources (including personnel competence, training, etc.) c) Means to communicate and control documentation and records d) Procedures for contract review (including planning, risk assessment/management) e) Structure for design and development including planning, inputs, outputs, verification and review/approval f) Contingency planning in case of incident or disruption g) Purchasing procedures and system including those for key commodities (e.g., casing and connections, well heads, pipelines, etc.) and services (e.g., drilling, welding, etc.) h) Plan for execution of service i) Preventive maintenance, inspection and test program j) Control and calibration of testing, measuring, monitoring and detection equipment k) Performance review and evaluation for continuous improvement The integration of these concepts into a quality system creates a typical Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle, Figure 2.
Plan Design/ Specify Do Manufacture &Pipeline Construction

The following aspects of the pipe procurement process adhere to the same tenets and will be discussed below. Plan Check 4 Act Do Pipe specification development Bid, review and tender Pipe supplier & sub-supplier qualification Pipe production Pre-production meetings Product & Process Verification Communication Post-production review

PIPE SPECIFICATION DEVELOPMENT Operator Pipe Specifications The pipe specification defines the specific quality and compliance criterion for the pipes intended service based on the pipeline design, construction, and operation, and considering the pipe materials, manufacturing, inspection and properties. Typically a pipe specification provides baseline requirements for an operators pipeline system supplementary to the regulatory code pipe manufacturing requirements (API 5L [13] or CSA Z245.1 [14]). In addition to this baseline set of requirements, there may be a set of project specific requirements often in the form of a design specific data sheet or operator specific supplement. Pipe Specification Requirements The pipe specification is one of the most critical of the components to an effective pipe procurement process as it communicates by definition the operators minimum pipeline system compliance requirements. Typical pipe specifications like API 5L or CSA Z245.1 cover all aspects of the pipe manufacturing process, with enhanced tolerances and acceptance criterion as needed for regulatory compliance. Pipe specifications typically include: Materials (steel, coil/plate, and pipe)

Act Revise

Check Review Process

Figure 2: Quality System Cycle

Copyright 2012 by ASME

a) Steel conditions such as fine grained, fully killed, continuously cast, as-rolled or normalized, and allowable thermal treatments b) Approved steel sources and processes Physical properties Chemical a) Chemical composition minimum, maximum and average allowances. If elemental aims are defined by supplier, they should be subjected to +/- deviation tolerances. b) Ladle and check analysis sample frequencies c) Carbon equivalency (formula and maxima) d) All intentionally added element shall be specified e) Acceptable variations between the heat and product analysis shall be specified Mechanical a) Validation of mechanical testing equipment and practices in compliance with ASTM A370 (for example) prior to start of production. Random validations throughout the production cycle are recommended b) Manufacturing mechanical testing (tension, drop weight tear and Charpy impact toughness, micro hardness, and microstructural analysis of weld region) at the test frequencies and temperatures specified by API 5L or design requirements c) Retest requirements for mechanical testing in accordance with API 5L, or as specified d) Sample extraction locations and orientations denoted for coil, plate and pipe e) Supplementary testing, as required by design, (e.g., simulated tensile strain aging while coating, corrosion, etc.) Manufacturing process controls Forming a) Coil / Plate identification and traceability requirements b) Diameter, weld peaking and plate offset criteria shall be specified to include compliance validation frequencies c) Length requirements d) Acceptability of jointers, if allowed Seam Welding

a) Qualified welding processes / consumables b) Procedure qualification and mechanical testing criteria for tack, full penetration and repair processes c) Qualification requirements of personnel and equipment d) Production validation requirements and welding performance reports e) Weld repair length and quantity tolerances f) Weldability studies g) Change control processes and approvals Inspection, verification and testing Hydrostatic testing a) Test pressure calculations for 95% of SMYS (consideration of the end loading compensation allowance, if applicable) b) Testing duration (10 to 20 seconds,) as applicable c) Pressure gauge calibration and verification requirements d) Documentation /record requirements e) Supplemental monitoring of mill hydrostatic expansion to identify, reduce or isolate potential concerns. f) Monitor and recording of forming diameters / pre/post hydrostatic diameter inspections / increased diameter checks during final inspection to identify or isolate expansion areas. Nondestructive Examination (Ultrasonic, radiography, magnetic particle) a) Equipment standardization and application procedure methods and frequencies specified b) Personnel qualification requirements and records in accordance with ASNT recommended practice SNT-TC-1A and its supplements c) Nondestructive testing of seam welds after hydrostatic testing d) Repaired defects inspected by same means as it was rejected e) Documentation /record requirements

Copyright 2012 by ASME

Visual and Dimensional Inspection a) Specified bevel design dimensional tolerances and verification frequencies b) Pipe end and body diameter, ovality (hi/lo), wall thickness, radial weld offset, weld peaking and straightness requirements and frequencies c) Visual inspection requirements and frequencies Measuring Devices All measuring device used for acceptance or rejection be in serviceable condition and properly calibrated. Shipping, storage, handling a) Logistical shipping arrangements schedule (barge, rail or ground) b) Handling requirements c) Loading diagrams and configurations and

Quality Assurance Control Requirements a) Quality manual procedural review b) Non-conformance and corrective action process c) Audit rights d) Random supplemental testing for validation e) Company / third party surveillance monitoring Project Design Specific Requirements The determination of the content of the operators supplementary baseline and project specific specification is based on considerations the following: Design a) Regulatory (e.g., alternate MAOP requirements) b) Fracture control (e.g., is traditional analysis adequate?) c) Temperature (e.g., compressor discharge) d) Service fluid (e.g., corrosivity) Construction a) Weldability (e.g., HAZ toughness) o Mechanized welding o AUT qualification o girth weld alternate acceptance criteria b) Pipe lifting/lowering analysis c) Manual welding (e.g., bevel design, preheat, transitioning, repairs) d) Field inspection (e.g., pipe/weld internal cleanliness) e) Routing (e.g., susceptibility of pipe D/t ratio to damage) f) Transportation (e.g., pipe length limits) g) Pipe size/grade (e.g., criticality of end dimensions) h) Traceability (e.g., maintaining identity) Operations a) In-line NDT inspection (e.g., anomaly response / repair) b) Non-piggable segments (e.g., direct assessment) c) Close interval surveys (esp. high consequence areas)

Traceability/identification a) Product stencil requirement be defined base on API 5L and operator requirements b) Preservation methods c) Color marking/banding requirements identified for all sizes, wall thickness and grades with color schemes contrasting the interior / exterior of the bare or coated pipe d) Stencil marking maps Documentation & records a) Executed MPS both during and post manufacturing containing the quality assurance manual, procedures, practices, policies and shop floor work instructions. b) Executed ITP both during and post manufacturing c) Process documentation i.e. production reports, reject rates as required d) Welding procedure specification and performance qualification records e) NDE personnel qualifications documentation requirements f) Hydrostatic test charts, if required g) Material Test Reports (MTRs) h) Shipping tallies i) Production and performance reports, as requested and agreed. 6

Copyright 2012 by ASME

General coil/plate specification These are general requirements that apply to all plate/coil line pipe orders as well as optional requirements that can be called out by a project specific inquiry sheet. a) Equipment and processes A description of equipment and process is requested to provided overview of systems and capabilities b) Key process control - definition of requirements to define criteria, how to handle casting events (slab intermixes, lead/cap slabs, etc.) c) Slab quality control o Process control measures for slab segregation control may include roll gap spacing / alignment verification, and macro-etch segregation checks, etc. o Internal cleanliness - process design (composition, tundish) and controls (casting practices) limit inclusion quantity, size and carryover o Slab conditioning practices d) Coil/plate cropping/trimming criteria identifies minimum cropping distances e) NDT, mechanical testing & dimensional inspection frequency/criteria identifies the extent and details of the processes including methods, frequency and in some cases criteria (e.g. plate shape) f) Release/rejection protocols For products rolled outside internal and agreed limits, the protocols will be laid out to define when and what actions need to be taken. g) Marking / traceability / reporting /packaging / loading documentation to identify/reference systems to ensure referenced systems are in place and can be audited. Order specific coil/plate inquiry This includes the details specific to the order such as: a) Dimensions, chemical compositions and mechanical properties with tolerances (Note that these may be different than required in pipe form due to internal controls and changes in pipe manufacturing.) b) Timing and delivery issues which tie to schedule

c) Additional requirements and considerations such as special tests, controls unique to project like weldability, macro-etch requirements, notification of potential customer witness, additional documentation, etc. PIPE SUPPLIER AND QUALIFICATION SUB-SUPPLIER

Operator qualification of suppliers An operators assessment and evaluation rating of a suppliers technical capability and performance history is vital to an effective procurement and production process. Prequalification activities of steel, coil/plate and pipe suppliers identify a suppliers overall performance strengths as it relates to the operators specific needs and requirements. Assessments are generally performed on site at the suppliers facility, but can also be evaluated by review of the pre-qualification documents guided by ISO 9001 and API Q1 section 7.4 & 7.5 [11 -12] and requirements in API 5L 8.3 and B.5 [6] : Pre-qualification evaluations include, a) Analysis review of previous production, quality, maintenance and compliance results, as a measure to gauge performance and experience b) Review of histograms of Chemical and Mechanical test results and dimensional accuracy c) Quality Manual and Procedure review, as a measure to gauge process controls d) Review of laboratory equipment and testing practices e) Review of nonconformance and corrective action logs over a specific duration, typically a six month to year period f) Review of equipment maintenance logs and on time delivery consistencies g) Random supplementary test requirements Additional process specific evaluations may need to be instituted if qualifying a supplier with

Copyright 2012 by ASME

limited experience or historical performance data. Pipe supplier qualification of sub-suppliers Within the larger procurement process, this constitutes its own plan-do-check-act loop. For new key commodity vendors (including coil/skelp suppliers, coaters, NDT supplier, etc.) such qualification is generally completed well ahead of a production bid. The following qualification process is guided by ISO 9001 and API Q1 section 7.4 & 7.5 [11 -12] and requirements in API 5L 8.3 and B.5 [6]: Plan: In addition to the references above, develop operator specific requirements in many cases defining tighter control criteria than that specified by the customer for key processes. Once the specification is defined, a trial inquiry is developed, a vendor is selected and negotiations with that vendor completed as to the specific technical requirements. Do: Quality system and technical audit(s) should be undertaken with the level of auditing based on the sophistication/maturity and experience of the manufacturer. The extent of trials is similarly dependent on the same factors. When a trial is undertaken, key processes and properties should be monitored and documented. Check: An analysis of the audit or trial is important in the evaluation and should include product characterization including mechanical properties & dimensions (e.g. plate-pipe/withinplate/pipe-pipe variability, and aims), quality system, operational issues, internal/external quality, marking, etc. Act: Once complete, a review and discussion of these findings with the vendor is necessary to consider required modifications (tune aim mechanical properties, dimensions, control variability, improve quality, etc.). Dependent on results, a repeat of some or all of the above may be required with revised specifications and more trials/analysis. BID, REVIEW AND TENDER Bid packages are an integral part, if not the most important component to an effective procurement process, as it is the communication corridor between the operator and manufacturer. Operators typically 8

devote significant amounts of time and resources composing bid packages as it is the foundation for overall compliance success. A structured bid package will encompass the following: a) Introduction Letter contains a general introduction and brief project overview with content details of the package. b) Request for Quotation RFQ criterion, guidelines, authorized points of contact, bid duration, close date, quotation format, submittal requirements c) Project Information - Project overview, schedule, bill of materials, design requirements and calculations, etc. d) Material Requirements Manufacturing specifications, quality assurance and vendor qualifications requirements e) Documentation Requirements Schedule, quotation, raw material providers, qualification and capability presentations, performance histograms and clarification and exceptions Manufacturer contract review Steelmaking and coil/plate input a) Qualified slab & coil/plate vendor o Pipe manufacturer forwards coil/plate specification & order specific inquiry o Coil/plate manufacturer completes capability & technical review o Pipe & coil/plate manufacturers agree on requirements b) Unqualified slab & coil/plate vendor o Discussed later in qualification section Develop Manufacturing Procedure Specification (MPS) The MPS is typically developed to include criteria provided in API 5L Annex B. [6] The MPS should first describe the internal systems for quality management, health and safety, environmental protection and provide external certification. The MPS includes details of the steelmaking, casting, hot rolling, processing and pipe manufacturing processes. It should then give a description of the processes (including process flow, and mill layout) and their controls, Copyright 2012 by ASME

especially for key process equipment. Key mechanical property controls are the steelmaking and rolling process control criteria - such as composition, finishing reduction, and reheat, finish entry/exit, and cooling entry/exit temperatures. Significant process deviations from these criteria demand feedstock rejection while minor deviations require either product rejection or test and release procedures in either the plate/coil or pipe. While new to industry standards such as API 5L, this has been historical standard industry practice. As with slab and coil/plate production, the identification and documentation of key pipe manufacturing process controls in forming and welding is important to understanding and later monitoring. Supplemental to this is a discussion of the production start-up protocols ensuring steady state production is dialled in to practices which capably meet order requirements and minimize start-up yield losses. It should discuss identification and traceability at all manufacturing stages including bare, double jointer and coated pipe marking maps. Details of the storage, handling, loading and shipping protocols are important to understand how the potential for damage and contamination is mitigated. Also, examples of certification documents and key reports are informative to ensure ease in post-production analysis and input into pipeline databases. Inspection and NDT procedures are also attached or referenced to the document providing further details of inspection and standardization practices. Develop Inspection & Test Plans The inspection and test plan (ITP) is a component of the MPS that details the inspection and NDT practices for the product. As with a detailed MPS, general guidance for an effective ITP is provided in the new API 5L annex B.4. [6] This document provides the details of the inspection activity and who its done by. It also references inspection, calibration and reporting practice, frequencies and criteria, the actions necessary when non-conformances are identified, and designated hold points. Pre-award meeting

Once the manufacturer returns the large package of information requested in the bid, including technical exceptions (if any), MPS & ITP and commercial documentation, a detailed evaluation of this must be undertaken by the purchaser. This evaluation should identify significant technical and logistical issues and determine the significance and alternatives to requirement exceptions. If necessary, a preaward meeting is called with each short list bidder to clarify, resolve and document significant outstanding issues. Bid evaluation Bid opening and evaluations are an integral component of an effective pipe procurement process. The evaluation of a bid is most effective when project team members composed of project management, procurement, engineering, quality assurance, construction and operations jointly perform a review. Independent reviews by procurement personal are common and typically focused towards commercial standings and product availability of bids. Joint reviews, by virtue of its members, often select the most suitable and capable bids for projects. A project members contribution in a joint review is as follows; a) Project Management Availability and project economics b) Procurement Commercial, schedule, T&Cs and final bid tabulation c) Engineering Design, integrity and technical compliance d) Quality Specification compliance, clarification and exceptions, material resources and vendor qualifications e) Construction Design impacts and schedule f) Operations Integrity, maintenance and compliance Bid openings are typically conducted within 1 to 2 days following the bid package closing date and are conducted jointly with each project member present, maintaining the integrity of the bid process. Each bid is to be evaluated for 9 Copyright 2012 by ASME

compliance to the requirements of the RFQ or bid package prior to the independent members review, ultimately eliminating incomplete bids and regret tenders. Independent reviews of each bid will be presented and discussed jointly in determining a short, one to three, list of selected bids. Additional meetings, with each selected vendor, are often needed to discuss and clarify understandings of the bid prior to final award. Award notifications are issued upon finalization of terms and conditions (T&Cs) between parties. PRE-PRODUCTION MEETINGS Once awarded, a pre-production meeting is planned typically one month prior to steelmaking. Attendees of this meeting typically include: operator, third party inspector, manufacturer (may also include steel & coil/plate manufacturer) with commercial, project, QA, operating, transportation and other disciplines represented. These meetings can last between one to 12 hours. These meetings should be documented identifying deliverables with timing and designated documentation, invoicing, logistic, commercial, and technical contacts. Some of the key components of the meeting include a review of: - Purchase order including quantities, pipe size, shipping tolerances, induction bends, welder qualification pipe, etc. - Specification & project datasheet including clarifying agreements, mechanical properties, and special testing. - Schedule for each process step. - MPS, ITP & NDT procedures (including approval of refined and finalized controls) - Marking maps including the full bare/coated layout with banding and jointer marking - Storage, handling, loading, & shipping procedures considering implications of new API RP 5L1, 5LW & 5LT documents [15 17]. The protocols for addressing plate/coil and pipe process and product deviations should be clarified identifying contact, timing, and level of detail desired. Where applicable, the role scope, notification, access, facilities, communication, etc. of the third party/customer inspection should be agreed upon as 10

well as the coordination and timing of audits and visits. There should be a discussion regarding the product transfer (e.g., coater, shipper, stockpile) to optimize coordination clearly identifying roles, communication, contacts, responsibilities, non-conformances, and marking. STEEL/COIL/PIPE PRODUCTION PROCESS VERIFICATION &

Manufacturing Procedure Qualification (if necessary) This process follows a similar quality cycle: Plan: Agree on scope, size and detail of qualification. This can vary from a simple review of present or historical characteristic chemical, mechanical, and dimensional data to full scale manufacturing specification compliance assessment. The extent and necessity of this start-up qualification and testing may be a function of project size/criticality, sophistication/ maturity of the quality system & experience of the manufacturer. Do: Conduct qualification pipe production Check: Analyze product including characterize mechanical properties, dimensions, operational issues, internal/external quality, marking, etc. Act: Review and modify process if required Pipe Production With the above work completed, the conversion of these plans to the actualization of the process requires little additional planning. The manufacturer utilizes his quality system and translates his MPS, ITP, and agreements to work instructions on floor ensuring the administrative aspects of contract are addressed and fulfilled. Essentially Do what you said you would do Purchaser Process Verification & Surveillance Follow-up purchaser inspection is often required to provide an independent verification of product quality and to provide the vendor early notification of processing/product problems to mitigate the impact on the project schedule. An example structure for a third party Copyright 2012 by ASME

surveillance processes is described in API RP 5SI. [18] This document describes three inspection levels from customer representative surveys of the process and quality activities on select production time to a survey of key process/quality areas and may include monitoring/witnessing of critical processes/final inspection after suppliers final inspection. Surveillance programs of any level must have a clearly defined scope of work for the third party inspector (TPI). Programs must clearly communicate the operators assigned role responsibilities, as well as authority levels of the third party representatives. It is recommended that the audit/inspection scope defined by the operator be reviewed by manufacturer and TPI ahead of arriving on-site in an effort to identify any concerns with production interfaces, proprietary information and safety issues required by the scope of work. This review is especially important at steelmaking and hot rolling facilities, as the proprietary nature of their operations are typically more sensitive to surveillance inspections. Sensitivity and control of proprietary information is paramount as third party representatives receives key documentation including specification(s), agreements, purchase documents and MPS/ITPs and observes specific process and controls during the performance of surveillance inspections. There are instances that internal proprietary documents and procedures are referenced in MPS information that is available for audit and review but not for electronic or hard copying. Sensitivity to this is important. The primary role of a third party inspector is to observe and report, as directed by the operator, the compliance of goods being manufactured to the agreed upon specifications and process control documents. Surveillance inspector(s) shall be knowledgeable, experienced and qualified in the specifications to which the product will be manufactured and inspected. While there are a good deal of such qualified TPI for pipe inspection, the availability of those for steelmaking and hot rolling inspection is limited at present. In cases where such inspector qualifications are limited, it is especially important that clear audit/inspection scope is defined. 11

The senior or lead inspector typically attends the pre-production meeting between the operator and manufacture to review the order status and most recent changes, if any prior to production. It is recommended at this time a review of the inspectors assigned role responsibilities and levels of surveillance be conducted and a formal and informal daily/intermittent interface be established between the third party inspector(s) and key manufacturing personnel. The availability and access to key data/reports required to survey production/quality shall be discussed and agreed upon with the manufacture. Tools such as instrument and gages utilized for acceptance and rejection shall also be discussed and agreed upon. Typically the manufacturers tools are controlled and are used as final arbiter. During or after the pre-production meeting adequate notification of the start of manufacturing will be given by the manufacturer which initiates mobilization of inspection personnel prior to the start of production. It is customary that the manufacturer provide office space with phone/internet/mail access for inspection personnel once on site. Prior to beginning work all safety plans, policies and procedures of the manufacturer including operator specific requirements shall be discussed with all TPI inspection personnel. Its recommended a safety register/log be conducted documenting the names of the attendees and specific documents covered during the safety meeting. Third party inspector observance of manufacturing practices shall not interfere with either the manufacturing personnel or the production. Quality and non-conformance dispute resolutions shall be at the discretion of the operator/purchaser though agreed between the operator and manufacturer prior to production. POST-PRODUCTION REVIEW Especially for large projects, a detailed analysis of pipe and sub-supplier performance is Copyright 2012 by ASME

critical for continuous improvement. This feedback should consider procurement, operations, construction, and design issues and address any process or property concerns. This information flows down through the manufacturers internal systems as well as its sub-suppliers and contractors and feeds into the corrective and preventive action systems. Ultimately from corrective or preventive action, system changes are made to avoid experiencing the same problem or potential problem again. From the operator side, this information feeds into potential changes in specifications and/or procurement practices. The responsiveness of the supplier is often a powerful indicator of his commitment to quality and continual improvement when evaluating such a supplier for a future order. CONCLUSIONS A strong, structured and effective pipe procurement and manufacturing process following the proven plando-check-act quality assurance model can minimize associated field construction, operation and design issues. The key features of such a system are summarized above and include the specification and bid package development through vendor qualification, bid contract review, slab, plate and pipe manufacturing (and the process control documentation and verification), manufacturing surveillance, and follow-up activities. A significant commitment to such a process, is at times difficult, but has the ability to properly manage the inevitable process and product deviations ultimately minimizing project timeline disruptions and reducing project costs not to mention impact overall quality of the project. One of the current and future challenges of this approach is the availability and performance of experienced personnel with the appropriate expertise and the associated influence on the management of such projects. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge Evraz NA for approving the publication of the paper and Laurie Collins of Evraz NA for assisting editing the document. In addition, the valuable comments on this subject from Stephen Rapp of Spectra Energy and David Milmine of DM Professional Services 12

Limited over the years helped form the basis of many of the concepts presented herein. REFERENCES [1] Hereth, M., 2010, Pipe Quality Action Plan, Presentation at the Best Practices in Procurement and Manufacturing Workshop, Houston, TX, June 9, 2010, INGAA Foundation. [2] Gordon, R. and Fazackerley, B., 2009, Technical Challenges Associated with the Construction of High Strength Pipelines, Presentation at the Construction, Fabrication and Testing: Quality Issues and Solutions Workshop, Houston, TX, October 15, 2009, INGAA Foundation. [3] Johnson, C., 2008, Pipeline Safety: Standards for Increasing the Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure for Gas Transmission Pipelines; Final Rule, 49 CFR part 192, docket PHMSA-2005-23477, US Federal Register, 73 (202), pp. 62148-62181. [4] Nanney, S., 2009, Materials and Inspection, Docket ID PHMSA-2009-00600007, Presentation at the New Pipeline Construction Workshop, Fort Worth, TX, April 23, 2009. [5] Weise, J., 2009, Pipeline Safety: Potential Low and Variable Yield and Tensile Strength and Chemical Composition in High Strength Line Pipe, docket PHMSA-2009-0148, Billing Code: 4910-60-W, Advisory Bulletin ADB-09-01, US Federal Register, 74 (97), pp. 23930-23931. [6] American Petroleum Institute, 2011, Specification for Line Pipe, 44th edition, October 2007, Addendum 3, Issued July 2011. [7] Boss, T., 2009, Workshop on Building Pipelines Better, Houston, TX, March 25-26, 2009. [8] Boss, T., 2009, Pipe Quality Summit, INGAA Foundation, Houston, TX, June 11, 2009. [9] Hoffman, R., 2009, Construction, Fabrication, Testing: Quality Issues and Solutions, INGAA Foundation, Houston, TX, October 15, 2009.

Copyright 2012 by ASME

[10] Drake, A., 2010, Best Practices in Line Pipe Procurement and Manufacturing Workshop, INGAA Foundation, Houston, TX, June 9, 2010. [11] ISO 9001:2008, Quality Management Systems Requirements, 4th edition, 2008-11-15, ISO copyright office, Case Postal 56, CH-1211 Geneva 20. [12] ISO TS 29001:2007/API Q1, 2007, Specification for Quality Programs for the Petroleum, Petrochemical and Natural Gas Industry, 8th edition, Dec 2007, American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L St., NW, Washington, DC, USA. [13] API 5L, 2007, Specification for Line Pipe, 44th edition, October 1, 2007, American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L St., NW, Washington, DC, USA. [14] CSA Z245.1-07, 2007, Steel Pipe, April 2007, Canadian Standards Association, 5060 Spectrum Way, Suite 100, Mississauga, ON, Canada. [15] API RP 5L1, Recommended Practice for Railroad Transportation of Line Pipe, 7th edition, September 2009, American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L St., NW, Washington, DC, USA. [16] API RP 5LW, Recommended Practice for Transportation of Line Pipe on Barge or Marine Vessel, 3rd edition, September 2009, American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L St., NW, Washington, DC, USA. [17] API RP 5LT, Recommended Practice for Truck Transportation of Line Pipe, 1st edition, March 2012, American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L St., NW, Washington, DC, USA. [18] API RP 5SI, Purchaser Representative Surveillance and/or Inspection at the Supplier, 1st edition, January 2006, American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L St., NW, Washington, DC, USA.

13

Copyright 2012 by ASME