American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L Street NW, Washington DC USA Tel Fax

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L Street NW, Washington DC USA Tel Fax"

Randall Harrell
5 years ago
Views:

1 Secretariat: ISO/TC 67/SC 4 Materials, equipment and offshore structures for petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries Drilling and production equipment American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L Street NW, Washington DC USA Tel Fax ISO/TC 67/SC 4 N To: Copy to: P-members O-members L-members ISO/CS Notification of patented material covered within TC 67/SC 4 N 367 New Work Item Proposal on Compact flanged connections Dear Members, In accordance with the ISO Directives, Part 1, a, 2004, this letter is being circulated to the members of ISO/TC 67/SC 4 to draw your attention to the patented materials covered within the New Work Item Proposal (NWIP) on Compact flanged connections (N 367) that was balloted on In the original NWIP form, the question regarding known patented items was checked "No". During the TC 67 Plenary meeting in October 2007, a concern was raised regarding the existence of patented material covered in TC 67/SC 4 N 367. The patent's existence was verified by the proposing country. A request has been made to the originator of the NWIP and patent holder for a completed patent statement and licensing declaration form [see ISO Directives, Part 1, b, 2004]. Please find attached for your review, the corrected NWIP form, the results of NWIP on Compact flanged connections (N 382rev), and the information the SC 4 Secretariat currently has on the patent. If you wish to change your position from that which is specified in N382, please send all modifications to me by 31 JANUARY Sincerely, Ed Baniak Secretary to ISO/TC 67/SC 4

2 NEW WORK ITEM PROPOSAL Date of presentation Proposer Standards Norway (SN) Reference number (to be given by the Secretariat) ISO/TC 67 / SC 4 N 367 Secretariat ANSI A proposal for a new work item within the scope of an existing committee shall be submitted to the secretariat of that committee with a copy to the Central Secretariat and, in the case of a subcommittee, a copy to the secretariat of the parent technical committee. Proposals not within the scope of an existing committee shall be submitted to the secretariat of the ISO Technical Management Board. The proposer of a new work item may be a member body of ISO, the secretariat itself, another technical committee or subcommittee, or organization in liaison, the Technical Management Board or one of the advisory groups, or the Secretary-General. The proposal will be circulated to the P-members of the technical committee or subcommittee for voting, and to the O-members for information. See overleaf for guidance on when to use this form. IMPORTANT NOTE: Proposals without adequate justification risk rejection or referral to originator. Guidelines for proposing and justifying a new work item are given overleaf. Proposal (to be completed by the proposer) Title of proposal (in the case of an amendment, revision or a new part of an existing document, show the reference number and current title) English title Compact flanged connections French title (if available) Scope of proposed project Development of an International Standard for class designated flanges, flange end products and seal rings according to section 5.1 of NORSOK L-005 "Compact flanges connections". Concerns known patented items (see ISO/IEC Directives Part 1 for important guidance) Yes No If "Yes", provide full information as annex Envisaged publication type (indicate one of the following, if possible) International Standard Technical Specification Publicly Available Specification Technical Report Purpose and justification (attach a separate page as annex, if necessary) Improve availibility of a flange system representing more than 250,000 "joint years" wordwide. Development of a new ISO standard based on NORSOK L-005, can be justified by improved sealing integrity, lower weight and space demand, and cost savings compared with the use of existing flange standards. Target date for availability (date by which publication is considered to be necessary) asap Proposed development track 1 (24 months) 2 (36 months - default) 3 (48 months) Relevant documents to be considered NORSOK L-005 "Compact flanged connections", Edition 2, May 2006 Relationship of project to activities of other international bodies Liaison organizations Need for coordination with: IEC CEN Other (please specify) FORM 4 (ISO) v Page 1 of 3

3 New work item proposal Preparatory work (at a minimum an outline should be included with the proposal) A draft is attached An outline is attached. It is possible to supply a draft by The proposer or the proposer's organization is prepared to undertake the preparatory work required Yes No Proposed Project Leader (name and address) Mr Tor Eriksen Statoil TOER@statoil.com Name and signature of the Proposer (include contact information) Standards Norway (SN) Attn.: Mr Per Kristian Lesund pkl@standard.no Comments of the TC or SC Secretariat Supplementary information relating to the proposal This proposal relates to a new ISO document; This proposal relates to the amendment/revision of an existing ISO document; This proposal relates to the adoption as an active project of an item currently registered as a Preliminary Work Item; This proposal relates to the re-establishment of a cancelled project as an active project. Other: Voting information The ballot associated with this proposal comprises a vote on: Adoption of the proposal as a new project Adoption of the associated draft as a committee draft (CD) (see ISO Form 5, question 2.3.1) Adoption of the associated draft for submission for the enquiry vote (DIS or equivalent) (see ISO Form 5, question 2.3.2) Other: Annex(es) are included with this proposal (give details) NORSOK L-005 "Compact flanged connections", Editon 2, May 2006 Date of circulation Closing date for voting Signature of the TC or SC Secretary Andy Radford Use this form to propose: a) a new ISO document (including a new part to an existing document), or the amendment/revision of an existing ISO document; b) the establishment as an active project of a preliminary work item, or the re-establishment of a cancelled project; c) the change in the type of an existing document, e.g. conversion of a Technical Specification into an International Standard. This form is not intended for use to propose an action following a systematic review - use ISO Form 21 for that purpose. Proposals for correction (i.e. proposals for a Technical Corrigendum) should be submitted in writing directly to the secretariat concerned. Guidelines on the completion of a proposal for a new work item (see also the ISO/IEC Directives Part 1) a) Title: Indicate the subject of the proposed new work item. b) Scope: Give a clear indication of the coverage of the proposed new work item. Indicate, for example, if this is a proposal for a new document, or a proposed change (amendment/revision). It is often helpful to indicate what is not covered (exclusions). c) Envisaged publication type: Details of the types of ISO deliverable available are given in the ISO/IEC Directives, Part 1 and/or the associated ISO Supplement. d) Purpose and justification: Give details based on a critical study of the following elements wherever practicable. Wherever possible reference should be made to information contained in the related TC Business Plan. 1) The specific aims and reason for the standardization activity, with particular emphasis on the aspects of standardization to be covered, the problems it is expected to solve or the difficulties it is intended to overcome. 2) The main interests that might benefit from or be affected by the activity, such as industry, consumers, trade, governments, distributors. 3) Feasibility of the activity: Are there factors that could hinder the successful establishment or global application of the standard? 4) Timeliness of the standard to be produced: Is the technology reasonably stabilized? If not, how much time is likely to be available before advances in technology may render the proposed standard outdated? Is the proposed standard required as a basis for the future development of the technology in question? FORM 4 (ISO) v Page 2 of 3

4 New work item proposal 5) Urgency of the activity, considering the needs of other fields or organizations. Indicate target date and, when a series of standards is proposed, suggest priorities. 6) The benefits to be gained by the implementation of the proposed standard; alternatively, the loss or disadvantage(s) if no standard is established within a reasonable time. Data such as product volume or value of trade should be included and quantified. 7) If the standardization activity is, or is likely to be, the subject of regulations or to require the harmonization of existing regulations, this should be indicated. If a series of new work items is proposed having a common purpose and justification, a common proposal may be drafted including all elements to be clarified and enumerating the titles and scopes of each individual item. e) Relevant documents and their effects on global relevancy : List any known relevant documents (such as standards and regulations), regardless of their source. When the proposer considers that an existing well-established document may be acceptable as a standard (with or without amendment), indicate this with appropriate justification and attach a copy to the proposal. f) Cooperation and liaison: List relevant organizations or bodies with which cooperation and liaison should exist. FORM 4 (ISO) v Page 3 of 3

5 RESULT OF VOTING ON NEW WORK ITEM PROPOSAL Date ISO/TC 67 / SC 4 N 382 Title of TC/SC concerned Drilling and production equipment To be completed by the secretariat and sent to the ISO Central Secretariat and to all P- and O-members of the TC or SC concerned, with a copy to the TC secretariat in the case of a subcommittee. Proposal ISO/TC 67/SC 4 N 367 Circulation Deadline Title (new title if appropriate; French title to be indicated in all cases, even when no French version is envisaged) English title Compact flanged connections French title Results (the compilation of results is given as an annex) The following criteria for acceptance have been met: Approval by a simple majority of the voting P-members 5 or more P-members voting approval have agreed to participate in the development of the project and have nominated an expert In the light of results, the proposal is therefore: Approved (all approval criteria met) Not approved (one or more approval criteria not met) Associated draft no draft was associated with this ballot. A first draft is expected by (give date) the associated draft is adopted as a working draft (WD) the associated draft is approved as a Committee draft (CD) the associated draft is approved as the proposed Draft International Standard (DIS) Further procedures (attribution to TC/SC/WG, Project Leader, development procedure, meetings, etc.) Other: The project is to be first registered as a Preliminary Work Item (stage 00.60) The project is to be immediately registered as an active work item Experts (give details below, or as a separate annex) Documents to be considered (give details below, or as a separate annex) Proposed development track 1 (24 months) 2 (36 months - default) 3 (48 months) Note: Selection of a development track will automatically associate default target dates with critical stages. If you envisage that you can advance a project quicker than the default target dates you may indicate your preferred earlier target dates in the field "Target date for submission'. Important! Quoting earlier target dates implies a commitment to meeting these dates If you do not want to change the defaults to earlier dates do not put anything in the "Target date for submission" fields. Target date for as a CD: as a FDIS: submission: as a DIS: for publication: Secretariat Secretary Registration by the Central Secretariat Date Allocated project number USA Andy Radford Other information, comments, etc. appended FORM 6 (ISO) v Page 1 of 5

6 Member body Compilation of the results of voting on ISO/NP When a draft has been attached Member status Feasible to develop a Globally Relevant Standard Accepted for Stage 0 Accepted for Progressing to WD P/O Yes No Abst. Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Y/N Argentina (IRAM) P X X N N Brazil (ABNT) P X X Y Y Canada (SCC) P X China (SAC) P X France (AFNOR) P X X N N Germany (DIN) P X X N N Indonesia (BSN) P X Italy (UNI) P X Y Y Korea, Republic of (KATS) P X Netherlands (NEN) P X X Y Y Norway (SN) P X X X Y Y Poland (PKN) P X United Kingdom (BSI) P X X Y Y United States (ANSI) P X X Accepted as a WD Accepted as CD Accepted as DIS Comments enclosed Participation Expert(s) nominated no reply (optional) Totals (P-members only) Y=5 N=3 Abstentions and incomplete votes are not counted Total of P-members voting (x): 10 Y=4 N=4 4 FORM 6 (ISO) v Page 2 of 5

7 Result of voting on new work item proposal Brazil (ABNT) Mr. Hernon Viana Filho Petroleo Brasileiro S/A Rua da Assembléia, º andar Centro - Rio de Janeiro - RJ - Brazil hernon@petrobras.com.br Gerson de Carvalho Costa Lima Petroleo Brasileiro S/A Av. Elias Agostinho, Macaé - RJ - Brazil gersoncl@petrobras.com.br Italy (UNI) Anatoly Baryshnikov E&P Anatoly.baryshnikov@eni.it The Netherlands (NEN) Mr. Hans Stegeman Shell Norway (SN) Tor Eriksen Statoil TOER@statoil.com Sjur Lassesen DNV Energy Offshore Class Norway Sjur.Lassesen@dnv.com Olav Nybraten Norsk Hydro Olav.Nybraten@hydro.com United Kingdom (BSI) Mr. J Peters jpeters@tuvnel.com FORM 6 (ISO) Page 3 of 5

8 Template for Comments and Secretariat Observations Ballot ID: 1118 Date: September 4, 2007 Document: 1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) MB 1 Clause No./ Subclause No./ Annex (e.g. 3.1) Paragraph/ Figure/Table/Note (e.g. Table 1) Type of comment 2 Comment (justification for change) by the MB Proposed change by the MB Secretariat observations on each comment submitted NO General Relevant Document: NORSOK L-005 "Compact flange connections", Edition 2, May See Petroleum sector. US General Technical We do not feel that the proposal is pertinent to 17D and as such does not add value. There are more pressing needs. One might argue that such a connection is pertinent to 17G, but I'm not sure about that either. The industry appears to be moving away from specialty connections for riser applications, at least for deep water. We vote to withdraw the NWIP request. US General Technical Standard as written and requested is geared more to topsides and should be addressed by Topsides and not Subsea. The flange presented in NORSOK L-005 is not suitable for subsea due to limited pressure rating, questionable external pressure rating capability for use subsea, unclear robustness of flange and potential increased cost due to more machining and more complicated make up Do not make this a Standard. US General Technical Compact flange referenced is a proprietary flange and even if the vendor says he will accept free use of the flange connections, we have no official documents detailing what exactly he is giving up. US General Technical We do not know if anyone else can build this flange even if the vendor gives up his rights to this flange. If a Standard where developed this would give the vendor and unfair advantage over competitors in that the 1 MB = Member body (enter the ISO 3166 two-letter country code, e.g. CN for China; comments from the ISO/CS editing unit are identified by **) 2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial NOTE Columns 1, 2, 4, 5 are compulsory. ISO electronic balloting commenting template/version page 1 of 5

9 Template for Comments and Secretariat Observations Ballot ID: 1118 Date: September 4, 2007 Document: 1 2 (3) 4 5 (6) (7) MB 1 Clause No./ Subclause No./ Annex (e.g. 3.1) Paragraph/ Figure/Table/Note (e.g. Table 1) Type of comment 2 Comment (justification for change) by the MB Proposed change by the MB Secretariat observations on each comment submitted industry would be endorsing this specific design which I don't think is our mandate. Don't see where this flange saves money, time or is safer and as such why should this flange be given a standard of its own? Not clear why this cannot be referenced in another standard. US Entire document Technical We are very worried about this OEC without a complete pedigree and FEA design documentation that the industry can bank on. There is no independent corraboration to the design. Functional requierements or where it may be or may not be used (fit-for-purpose) is not clearly defined. Offer this document as a API bulletin or technical report. This should not be a standard in any way until all of the above pre-conditions are met. We are also worried about who accepts liability when this design breaks? ISO and API cannot. We also do not see a home for this document either within the 17D or 17G family. 1 MB = Member body (enter the ISO 3166 two-letter country code, e.g. CN for China; comments from the ISO/CS editing unit are identified by **) 2 Type of comment: ge = general te = technical ed = editorial NOTE Columns 1, 2, 4, 5 are compulsory. ISO electronic balloting commenting template/version page 2 of 5

Date of presentation Proposer AFNOR. Secretariat SIS

Date of presentation Proposer AFNOR. Secretariat SIS NEW WORK ITEM PROPOSAL Date of presentation 2008-10-25 Proposer AFNOR Reference number (to be given by the Secretariat) ISO/TC 223 / SC N112 Secretariat SIS A proposal for a new work item within the scope