NACE Standard MR0175, Metals for Sulfide Stress Cracking and Stress

Corrosion Cracking Resistance in Sour Oilfield Environments, was revised and

reorganized over a seven-year period, resulting in the publication of the 2003
edition in February 2003.
Because the changes were extensive, the Maintenance Panel formed to maintain
this widely used standard, which will soon be combined with ISO 15156 (based on
MR0175), has received many questions regarding the requirements and revisions.
Following are the inquiries and responses provided thus far by the Maintenance
Panel. Users of MR0175 who have questions are encouraged to review these to
determine whether your question may have been answered. Numbers are
missing from the sequence because not all inquiries have been answered; this
information will be updated periodically as more replies are formulated by the
Maintenance Panel.
These responses represent a consensus of the members of the Maintenance
Panel and should not be construed to reflect the opinions of NACE International,
its officers, directors, or members.

MP INQUIRY #2003-02
QUESTION #1:
Do Paragraphs 9.2 and 9.5 both apply to choke valves? Additionally, choke valves are
also used in applications where they are not directly mounted on the Christmas tree
(i.e., manifolds, heaters, separators, etc.); can we still consider the choke valve to fall
under Paragraph 9.2 for these applications?
ANSWER #1:
Please see attached ISO 15156 Table A.1, which will provide the interpretation of NACE
MR0175 Paragraphs 9.2, 9.3, and 9.5. NACE will be adopting ISO 15156 in 2003 as a
technically equivalent document.
QUESTION #2:
If both Paragraphs 9.2 and 9.5 are applicable, as we believe they are, can we select
which paragraph we follow when they cover the same component or materials? Does
Paragraph 9.4 apply to choke valves?
ANSWER #2:
Choke non-pressure-containing parts made of alloy UNS S17400 have no
environmental restrictions in accordance with Paragraph 9.5.2, while there is a limit of
0.5 psi H2S for pressure-containing parts in Paragraph 9.2.4.1.

MP INQUIRY #2003-04
QUESTION #1:
Paragraph 4.2Austenitic Steels (say 316SS). One of the acceptance limits for these
materials is a maximum H2S partial pressure of 15 psia at a maximum of 140F when
no chlorides are present. Can I assume that I can still use a material from this category
at a higher temperature than 140F if the partial pressure of H2S is lower than 15 psia?
ANSWER #1:
Please see attached ISO 15156 Table A.2, which is the correct interpretation of NACE
MR0175 Paragraph 4.2.2. With the exception of Alloy UNS S20910, the temperature
limit of the austenitic stainless steels is 140F maximum for any H2S level within the
scope of the document.
QUESTION #2:
Paragraph 9.2Wellheads and Christmas trees. Does this paragraph include the valve
bodies that are on the Christmas trees as well as other valve bodies exposed to H2S?
In other words, which paragraph in Section 9 refers to the valve body?
ANSWER #2:
See attached ISO 15156 Table A.1, which will provide the interpretation of NACE
MR0175 Paragraph 9.3. NACE will be adopting ISO 15156 in 2003 as a technically
equivalent document. Please see ISO 15156 Part 1 for guidance as to how to use field
experience or laboratory data to qualify a material for H2S service.

MP INQUIRY #2003-07

QUESTION:
WIKA believes that Alloy 400, UNS N04400, should be included in both the latest
version of MR0175 and the imminent ISO 15156 standard. As outlined in the foreword
of MR0175-2003, Many of the guidelines and specific requirements in this standard are
based on field experience with the materials listed . . .
We propose that Alloy 400, UNS N04400, be added to Section 8, Special Components,
Paragraph 8.4.2, Diaphragms, Pressure-Measuring Devices, and Pressure Seals.
ANSWER:
NACE will adopt in 2003 the ISO 15156 document as being technically
equivalent to MR0175. At this time there will be only a joint document, NACE
MR0175/ISO 15156. The NACE MR0175 2003 edition will cease to exist.

NACE is soliciting ballot items for inclusion into a 2004 addendum to the joint
document. Attached is the ballot format, which you may use to submit inclusion
of the gauge alloys. The ballot proposal should include laboratory data and/or
documented field experience. Please see ISO 15156 Part 1 for guidance. You
may choose to use such field experience to support a paragraph similar to
Paragraph 10.7.2 or 10.7.3 in NACE Standard MR0175-2003.

Please let us know how we may be of assistance.

MP INQUIRY #2003-08
QUESTION:
In the past we have used 300 series SS pipes and valves in sour service. We are not
sure of the implications and use of SS in sour service according to NACE Standard
MR0175-2003. Could you please advise whether 300 series SS (304/316, etc.) can be
used at lower H2S partial pressures for temperatures above 60C (140F)?
ANSWER:
No, the maximum temperature for use of the austenitic stainless steels, as defined in
NACE Standard MR0175 Paragraph 4.2, is 60C (140F).
Please see ISO 15156 Part 1 for guidance as to how to use field experience or
laboratory data to qualify a material for H2S service.

MP INQUIRY #2003-09

QUESTION #1:
In what paragraph are the requirements for wrought bar in nickel-copper alloy (i.e., UNS
N04400 and N04405)? In the 2002 version, these materials were covered in Paragraph
4.1.1.
ANSWER #1:
These alloys, UNS N04400 and N04405, are no longer in the standard except in
Paragraphs 10.6.2.2 and 10.7.3.
QUESTION #2:
In the 2002 version of MR0175, the maximum hardness requirement for duplex UNS
S32550 was covered in Paragraph 3.9.1. This same material is now covered in
Paragraph 4.9 of the 2003 version of this standard, but the hardness requirement
seems to be missing. Has the hardness requirement been dropped for this material, or
is the hardness assumed to be acceptable as long as the material has been solution
annealed and liquid quenched?
ANSWER #2:
This is correct. There is no hardness requirement for the duplex stainless steels
covered in Paragraph 4.9.1.
The Maintenance Panel will discuss at our upcoming meeting before Eurocorr 2003 the
inclusion of a possible ballot for inclusion of N04400 and N04405 into ISO 15156 Part 3
using the same words as in Paragraph 4.1.1 of NACE Standard MR0175, 2002 edition.
You may wish to propose your own ballot item for these alloys.

MP INQUIRY #2003-10
QUESTION #1:
We manufacture a fluid-handling product machined from UNS N04400 and N04405 in
the cold-worked condition with a hardness less than 35 HRC. We have certified that
this product meets MR0175 based on Paragraph 4.1.1.1 of MR0175-2002.
a) May we continue to certify that this product meets MR0175-2003, since this material
is mentioned in Paragraph 10.6.2.2?
b) Is it acceptable to continue to certify meeting MR0175-2002?
ANSWER #1:
The MP cannot provide interpretations involving the certification of equipment. We can
only interpret the current edition of MR0175. Paragraph 10.6.2.2 states that UNS
N04400 and N04405 may be used for gas lift equipment.
QUESTION #2:
We manufacture a fluid-handling product machined from UNS N06600 in the coldworked condition with a hardness less than 35 HRC. We have certified that this product
meets MR0175 based on Paragraph 4.1.4.1 of MR0175-2002.
a) It appears this material is not included in MR0275-2003. Is it acceptable to certify
that this material meets MR0175-2003 based on the listing in previous versions?
b) If not, is it acceptable to continue to certify meeting MR0175-2002?
ANSWER #2:
The MP cannot provide interpretations involving the certification of equipment. We can
only interpret the current edition of MR0175.

MP INQUIRY #2003-11
QUESTION:
According to NACE Standard MR0175-2003, 625 material, as a solid-solution nickelbased alloy, is acceptable only in the solution-annealed condition. This constitutes a
major change with respect to previous editions, in which 625 material was accepted up
to 35 HRC regardless of the delivery condition.
The annealed condition is considered the most suitable condition by most of our
customers and we are not aware of problems or failures with material 625 used in this
condition for NACE applications. Unless a real problem exists in using annealed 625,
we would like to understand whether:
The definition of solution annealing given in NACE Standard MR0175-2003 has to
be interpreted to exclude 625 material in the annealed condition; or
For 625 material, annealing performed in a given temperature range (to be suitably
defined, even more narrow than the range from 1,600 to 1,900F) can be considered a
solution-annealing heat treatment as defined in Section 2.
ANSWER:
Tables A.12, A.13, and A.14 in ISO 15156 provide answers to your requests for
interpretations.
NACE will be adopting ISO 15156 in 2003 as a technically equivalent document.
The nickel-based alloys may be used in the annealed or solution-annealed condition
within the requirements of these ISO tables.
Please also refer to the definition of solution-annealed in Section 2 of NACE Standard
MR0175. This definition does not prescribe the temperature for the solution-annealing
heat treatment.

MP INQUIRY #2003-12
QUESTION #1:
Paragraph 1.10.2 states, The user may replace materials in kind for existing wells
or for new wells within a given field if the design basis for the equipment has not
changed.
Does this statement include valves or valve components that are used within wells?
ANSWER #1:
Yes, this paragraph does apply to valves and valve components used within the wells.
QUESTION #2:
Definition of pressure-containing parts on page 7. Those parts whose failure to
function as intended would result in a release of retained fluid to the atmosphere.
Examples are valve bodies, bonnets, and stems.
Are stems always defined as pressure-containing parts, regardless of features that by
design keep the stem intact?
Example #1: Internal entry stems for ball valves that have a shoulder that rests against
the body around the stem bore.
Example #2: Shafts for butterfly valves that have a retaining ring holding the shaft
inside the valve.
ANSWER #2:
NACE Standard MR0175 cannot interpret design issues. The Maintenance Panel may
only refer you to the definition of pressure-containing parts in Section 2 and the use of
this definition with restrictions in Section 9.
QUESTION #3:
Paragraph 4.3.1 for UNS S20910 allows this material to be used in sulfur-free
environments when the maximum H2S partial pressure is 15 psia to 150F in the
annealed or hot-rolled (hot/cold-worked) condition at 35 HRC maximum hardness.
Paragraph 9.4.1 for UNS S20910 allows this material to be used for valve shafts, stems,
and pins at a maximum hardness level of 35 HRC in the cold-worked condition,
provided this cold working is preceded by a solution-anneal heat treatment.
Does this mean that I can use UNS S20910 for valve stems in the cold-worked
condition (preceded by a solution-anneal heat treatment) at 35 HRC max with no
environmental restrictions?
ANSWER #3:
There are no environmental restrictions for UNS S20910 permitted at the higher
hardness of 35 HRC in Paragraph 9.4.1 for the applications defined in Paragraph 9.4.

Please see the attached Table A.3 from ISO 15156, which provides the correct
interpretation of this paragraph. NACE will be adopting ISO 15156 in 2003 as a
technically equivalent document.
QUESTION #4:
Paragraphs 9.2.4.1 and 9.5.2. Why is it that UNS S17400 can be used for pressurecontaining wellhead and Christmas tree components (Paragraph 9.2.4.1) but not for
pressure-containing valve components (Paragraph 9.5.2)?
ANSWER #4:
Paragraph 9.5.2 allows UNS S17400 to be used with no environmental restrictions.
Therefore, the alloy is not allowed for pressure-containing components in valves. In
comparison, Paragraph 9.2.4 has environmental restrictions and will therefore allow the
use of S17400 for parts other than bodies and bonnets.

MP INQUIRY #2003-16
QUESTION:
Paragraph 1.5.1 of NACE Standard MR0175-2003 states that SCC may be controlled
by any or all of three measures: (1) using the materials and processes described in this
standard; (2) controlling the environment; or (3) isolating the components from the sour
environment.
My client has an application in which Inconel 625 weld metal is overlay welded onto a
martensitic steel component. The martensitic steel component base material and heataffected zones are isolated from the fluids by the Inconel 625; all wetted surfaces are
Inconel 625.
My clients customer believes the base material must be stress relieved in accordance
with Paragraph 5.2.1, which states: Overlays applied to carbon and low-alloy steel or
to martensitic stainless steels by thermal processes such as welding, silver brazing, or
spray metallizing systems are acceptable for use in sour environments, provided the
substrate does not exceed the lower critical temperature during application. In those
cases in which the lower critical temperature is exceeded, the component must be heat
treated or thermally stress relieved in accordance with procedures that have been
shown to return the base metal to the base metal hardness as specified in this
standard.
We believe that Paragraph 5.2.1 does not apply since the base metal is isolated from
the sour environment with Inconel 625, which is acceptable to 35 HRC.
ANSWER:
The base material must be stress relieved in accordance with the requirements of
Paragraphs 5.2 and 5.3 of NACE Standard MR0175.

MP INQUIRY #2003-17
QUESTION:
We need clarification of Paragraph 4.8.2Low-Carbon Martensitic Stainless Steels. In
the 2002 edition this was Paragraph 3.7.2.1. The 2002 edition allowed wrought material
meeting the chemistry requirements of ASTM A 487 CA6NM. The 2003 edition appears
not to allow these F6NM wrought materials (UNS S41500), just S42400, which is not
the same thing. Please advise whether this material is acceptable.
ANSWER:
Wrought F6NM (UNS S41500) is included in Paragraph 4.8.2.
conform to all of the restrictions in Paragraphs 4.8 and 4.8.2.1.

UNS S41500 must

The MP will discuss an editorial revision to ISO 15156 Part 3 to clarify this.

MP INQUIRY #2003-18
QUESTION:
Paragraphs 4.2 and 4.2.1 refer to all CRAs being used in contact with well fluids but do
not necessarily include instrument or control tubing (Bourdon tubes) being used in
pressure indicators as listed in Paragraph 8.4.4.1. Currently this means that 316
stainless steel alloys (L, Ti, etc.) containing those elements are not ruled out from their
being used in gauges where the well fluid wetted parts are not exposed to fluids that do
not exceed:
4.2.2 The maximum acceptable H2S partial pressure shall be 100 kPa abs (15 psia) at a
maximum temperature of 60C (140F), with no restrictions on chlorides, and no
elemental sulfur.
If the chloride content is less than 50 mg/L, the H2S partial pressure shall be less than
150 kPa abs (50 psia).
Each application is subject to the specific environmental conditions to the equipment
supplier, particularly if the equipment will be used in sour service.
Under the above stated conditions, do gauges that are made with 316 SS alloy steels
comply with NACE Standard MR0175-2003?
ANSWER:
You have correctly cited Paragraph 4.2 of MR0175 for the general use of austenitic
stainless steels. It is the manufacturer's responsibility to determine whether the 316 SS
meets the metallurgical requirements of this paragraph, including the requirement that
the alloy will be "free of cold work . . . "
--There is no exclusion for Type 316 stainless steel from the metallurgical or the
environmental requirements of Paragraph 4.2 in Paragraph 8.4.2 of MR0175-2003.
--NACE will adopt in 2003 the ISO 15156 document as being technically equivalent to
MR0175. At this time there will be only a joint standard, NACE MR0175/ISO 15156.
The NACE MR0175 2003 edition will cease to exist.
--NACE is soliciting ballot items for inclusion into a 2004 addendum to the joint
document. Attached is the ballot format that you may use to submit inclusion of your
chosen gauge alloys. The ballot proposal should include laboratory data and/or
documented field experience. Please see ISO 15156 Part 1 for guidance. You may
choose to use such field experience to support a paragraph similar to Paragraph 10.7.2
or 10.7.3 in MR0175-2003.

MP INQUIRY #2003-19
QUESTION #1a:
NACE Standard MR0175-2003 has two different highly alloyed austenitic SS families,
one (Paragraph 4.4) with Ni% + 2 Mo% >30 (and Mo>=2%) and one (Paragraph 4.5)
with PREN >40. Both have two different ranges for temperature, partial H2S partial
pressure, and maximum chloride content. Which environmental limits have to be used
for materials applicable for both categories like UNS S31254?
ANSWER #1a:
If UNS S31254 has a PREN >40, then the less restrictive environmental limits in
Paragraph 4.5 apply.
QUESTION #1b:
In Paragraph 1.8.3.3.1 it is mentioned that interpolation between H2S levels and
temperature is acceptable. When applying this to Table 3 (as an example) what will be
the maximum partial H2S pressure at 140C, where an interpolation is required between
2.8 MPa and unlimited? Does this mean that below 149C there is no limit to the
maximum partial H2S pressure?
ANSWER #1b:
ISO 15156, Clause 5, states: "Qualification, with respect to a particular mode of failure,
for use in defined service conditions, also qualifies a material for use under other
service conditions that are equal to or less severe in all respects than the conditions for
which qualification was carried out." In this case, for the precipitation-hardenable nickelbased alloys addressed in Table 3, this automatically qualifies the material for use at
temperatures below 149C and below 2.8 MPa H2S partial pressure. Qualification of a
material for application under specific conditions that are more severe than those listed
in ISO 15156/NACE MR0175 is allowed. Qualification on the basis of laboratory testing
or field experience is required to comply with the (ISO) standard. The equipment user is
responsible for ensuring a material is properly qualified.
QUESTION #2:
What is the foundation for limiting forged and cast UNS S31803 (Paragraph 4.9.3) to a
maximum partial H2S pressure and temperature while the hot isostatic pressureproduced equivalent (Paragraph 4.9.4) is only limited to maximum hardness?
ANSWER #2:
Paragraph 4.9.4 should have been 4.9.3.1, having the same environmental limits as
Paragraph 4.9.3, and this error has been corrected in an interpretation and in Table
A2.4 of ISO 15156. Paragraph 4.9.4 was intended to provide metallurgical
requirements only for the HIP alloy.

MP INQUIRY #2003-20
QUESTION #1:
Paragraph 4.4 in MR0175 identifies "Highly Alloyed Austenitic Stainless Steels with Ni%
+ Mo>30 and 2% Mo minimum" as a category. Is it intended by the standard writers
that the two conditions be both present? In other words, is it Ni% + Mo>30 with 2% Mo
minimum? Or is the 2% Mo minimum another defined material group in the category? I
believe it to be the former as I am not aware of highly alloyed austenitic stainless steels
only defined by the term "2% Mo minimum."
ANSWER #1:
Paragraph 4.4 in NACE Standard MR0175 is a single alloy category defined by the
additive requirements of Ni% + Mo% >30 and 2% Mo. Both requirements for chemistry
must be met.
QUESTION #2:
Paragraph 11.4 of the standard, which is titled "Compressors and Pumps," appears to
not address many significant applications for pumps. None of the material classes
addressed in Paragraphs 11.4.2, 11.4.3, 11.4.4, 11.4.5, 11.4.6, or 11.4.7 speak to
applications in pumps in sour service. Is this intentional? It would appear that the
limitations applied to compressors would be also applicable to pumps.
ANSWER #2:
It is intentional that the paragraphs you have cited apply only to compressors. The
Paragraphs 11.4.2 and 11.4.3 come from the previous 2002 edition. The other
paragraphs were added as a result of the balloting process for the 2003 edition.

MP INQUIRY #2003-21
QUESTION:
Because UNS C72900 and C96900 are copper alloys, are they, by definition, covered
by Section 4 of NACE Standard MR0175, which basically states copper alloys are
suitable for use without restriction other than as noted in the footnote, which informs the
user that such materials may exhibit accelerated general weight-loss corrosion in some
sour environments?
ANSWER:
The UNS C72900 and UNS C96900 copper alloys are included in NACE Standard
MR0175 Paragraph 4.20.

MP INQUIRY #2003-22
QUESTION #1:
Are the bolting materials and nuts specified in Paragraphs 6.2.1.2 and 6.2.1.3,
respectively, the only acceptable materials in compliance with MR0175-2003 for
Exposed Bolting?
ANSWER #1:
Bolting materials may be chosen in accordance with Sections 3 and 4 as described in
MR0175-2003, Paragraph 6.2.1.1.
QUESTION #2:
Does Paragraph 6.2.1.1 allow other nuts and bolting materials besides the ones listed in
Paragraphs 6.2.1.2 and 6.2.1.3?
ANSWER #2:
Yes, in accordance with NACE Standard MR0175-2003 Sections 3 and 4.
QUESTION #3:
Are the following ASTM bolting materials and nuts acceptable for exposed bolting in
accordance with Paragraph 6.2 of MR0175-2003? (ASTM A 193, carbide solution
treated, GR B8R, B8RA, B8, B8M; A 194, carbide solution treated, Gr 8R, 8RA; A 320,
carbide solution treated, Gr B8, B8M)
ANSWER #3:
The manufacturer is responsible for the effects of carbide solution treatment on the
material properties.

MP INQUIRY #2003-23
QUESTION #1:
Paragraph 4.2.2 is new. Would you let us know which interpretation applies?
1. Paragraph 4.2.2 is intended to place a limit on acceptable H2S content under the
conditions stated, i.e., when temperature does not exceed 60C, when no elemental
sulfur is present, but without restriction on chlorides.
2. Paragraph 4.2.2 places a maximum temperature limit of 60C on the use of austenitic
stainless steel under any conditions in which MR0175 applies, for example, at 0.1 psia
H2S partial pressure with no chlorides present.
ANSWER #1:
Please see the attached Table A.2 from the draft of ISO 15156 Part 3, which provides a
clear interpretation of NACE Standard MR0175-2003 Paragraph 4.2.2 for the use of
austenitic stainless steels in sour service.
QUESTION #2:
In addition, please clarify the reason for the 60C limit in Paragraph 4.2.2:
We have noted that a limit of 60C is commonly cited with respect to chloride stress
corrosion for austenitic SST in other publications, and that chloride is mentioned in
Paragraph 4.2.2. Are we correct in assuming, therefore, that the 60C limit in
Paragraph 4.2.2 is based on chloride stress corrosion concerns above 60C when
chloride concentrations above 50 mg/L are present rather than H2S corrosion concerns?
That is, the first sentence of Paragraph 4.2.2 does not have a limit on chlorides but does
have a temperature limit, whereas the second sentence limits chlorides but does not
have a temperature limit.
ANSWER #2:
Paragraph 4.2.2 limits austenitic stainless steels (as defined in Paragraph 4.2.1) to 60C
maximum when used in hydrogen sulfide (H2S)-bearing hydrocarbon service. It allows
a maximum H2S partial pressure of 100 kPa abs (15 psia) with no restrictions on
chlorides; or 350 kPa abs (50 psia) maximum H2S partial pressure if chlorides are less
than 50 mg/L. In either case, there must be no elemental sulfur and the maximum
temperature is restricted to 60C (140F).
The phrase in the sentence in Paragraph 4.2.2 with no restrictions on chlorides means
that any chloride concentration from nil to several thousand ppm chlorides (for example)
are acceptable up to 100 kPa H2S partial pressure up to a maximum temperature of
140F.
See Paragraph 1.1 in NACE Standard MR0175-2003 for the scope of MR0175. The
environmental restrictions in Paragraph 4.2.2 were established to provide resistance to
sulfide stress cracking (SSC) and/or stress corrosion cracking (SCC) in austenitic
stainless steels.

MP INQUIRY #2003-24
QUESTION #1:
In reference to Table D2, Acceptable Specifications for Tubular Goods, in the left
column titled For All Temperatures, why is Pipe a separate category from Tubing and
Casing? In the API 5CT specification (see Paragraph 1.1), as well as the NACE
MR0175-2003 standard, casing is identical to pipe (see Sections 10 and 2, Tubular
Components).
ANSWER #1:
Casing and tubing are generally but not always intended for the completion of oil and
gas wells. These materials are referred to and specified in API Spec. 5CT.
Pipe may have many intended uses and is referred to and specified in API Spec. 5L and
other industry standards.
QUESTION #2:
MR0175 is obviously written for guidance in meeting the H2S corrosion problem. Where
does NACE address chloride corrosion cracking, particularly in pipe and tube materials?
We are seeing more and more customer specs calling for special materials. What is the
NACE opinion on best pipe/tube materials for defeating chloride corrosion cracking?
ANSWER #2:
Please refer to Section 1 of NACE Standard MR0175-2003 and also to ISO 15156 Part
1 for the scope of the documents for which cracking mechanisms are considered in H2S
service.

MP INQUIRY #2003-25
QUESTION:
Paragraph 4.11 of NACE Standard MR0175-2003 does not stipulate a minimum cobalt
content. Do solid-solution nickel-based alloy wrought materials complying with either of
the two chemical composition alternatives detailed in Paragraph 4.11.1, but with zero
percent cobalt, qualify for no environmental limits with respect to partial pressures of
H2S in accordance with Paragraph 4.11.2?
ANSWER:
There are no environmental limits with respect to partial pressures of H2S or elemental
sulfur as stated in NACE Standard MR0175-2003 Paragraph 4.11.2 for solid-solution
nickel-based alloys defined as a category in Paragraph 4.11. There is no individual
requirement for the minimum content of Co alone in Paragraph 4.11. Chemistry
requirements for Co are expressed only for the sum of nickel and cobalt.

MP INQUIRY #2003-26
QUESTION #1:
What are the reasons for the exclusion of nickel-copper alloys, e.g., UNS N04400, from
the materials listed in Section 4?
ANSWER #1:
The wrought nickel-copper alloys were removed from the general section of NACE
Standard MR0175 because of concerns from field failures of UNS N05500. It was
expected that as a result of ballots over the 6-plus years of drafts that the 2003 edition
of MR0175 would include the reinsertion of UNS alloys N04400 and UNS N04405 into
the appropriate equipment sections. This has not been the case. There has not been a
single ballot for including these alloys. However, the ISO Maintenance Panel has
agreed to put forward for ballot to the ISO Oversight Committee and ISO WG 7 a
proposal to include these two alloys into the Instrumentation and Control Devices
Paragraph 8.4. If the ballot passes, the alloys will be included in a 2004 addendum to
ISO 15156/NACE MR0175-2004 in the table currently numbered A.16.
QUESTION #2:
With reference to Paragraph 1.10.2: Equipment manufactured with UNS N04400 and
operating before the issuing of the last MR0175 edition may be replaced today with
equipment manufactured with the same material, if the equipment design and
environmental conditions have not been changed? If a conformity declaration to
MR0175 is required for the new equipment, which edition must be declared (2003 or
previous)?
QUESTION #3:
For new wells and/or petroleum plants designed according to MR0175 before its last
edition, but manufactured after the last edition was issued, may materials considered by
the design but not listed in the new standard edition be used?
If a conformity declaration to MR0175 is required for the equipment of the new
well/plant, which edition must be declared (2003 or previous)?
QUESTION #4:
May materials not listed in the last edition of MR0175, that have successfully passed
test requirements of TM0177 and/or have demonstrated adequacy for service
performances, have your declaration of conformity and be certified by the manufacturer
"in conformity with NACE MR0175-2003"?
ANSWERS #2, 3, 4:
NACE and ISO support the latest editions of their documents. We cannot comment on
conformity declarations. Please see ISO 15156 for requirements to document materials
performance outside the current limits. This documentation may be through laboratory
data or from field experience.

QUESTION #5:
Is a NACE office available in Italy or in other European countries?
ANSWER #5:
All inquiries should be transmitted to the ISO Maintenance Panel through Linda
Goldberg at NACE Headquarters in Houston, Texas. The Maintenance Panel has
international membership. A membership roster is attached.

MP INQUIRY #2003-27
QUESTION #1:
Paragraph 9.2.4.1 Pressure Containing Components--What is the definition of bonnets?
What about drain plugs?
ANSWER #1:
Unfortunately, as you have noted, there are no NACE definitions for the terms you have
listed. Therefore, they are open to your interpretation.
QUESTION #2:
Old (2002) Paragraph 4.1.5.1 UNS N06625 HRC >35
New (2003) Paragraph 4.11 and A13: N06625 solution-annealed only: Technical
justification?
ANSWER #2:
The consensus during the balloting process for the 2003 edition was that no hardness
limit was required for solution-annealed material. Alloy manufacturers did not object to
the change.
QUESTION #3:
Zeron 100: Old (2002): Paragraph 3.9.6/3.9.7: pH2S <0.2 bar (20 kPa) and 120 pH2S
<1 bar (100 kPa) and 15 g/L Cl- and pH >5.6
New (2003) Paragraphs 4.10 and A24: pH2S <0.2 bar (20 kPa) only: What is the
technical justification for this change?
ANSWER #3:
The restrictions for duplex stainless steels was a consensus of the original drafting team
based on their review of the literature. There was no negative on the final ballot for the
2003 edition.
QUESTION #4:
17-4 pH: Old (2002): Paragraph 3.8.1. Only requirement: HRC 33
New (2003): Paragraph 9.2.4.1 and A27: pH2S <0.034 bar: Technical justification?
ANSWER #4:
The 17-4 pH SS alloy was restricted because of industry failures. Please see the
attached documentation. There was no negative on the final ballot.
QUESTION #5:
AISI 316: Technical justification of the temperature limitation to 60C. Alignment only.
ANSWER #5:

The austenitic stainless steels were restricted because of industry and lab failures.
Please see the attached documentation. Upon the final ballot, there was a single
negative that was not withdrawn. This negative suggested making the restrictions on
316 SS even more restrictive. However, upon review of the data, the ISO Maintenance
Panel will propose a ballot for the 2004 addendum to ISO 15156/NACE MR0175 that
will not restrict the temperature limit for material in low-chloride service of 50 mg/L or
less. If this ballot passes, it will be introduced as an amendment to the standard.

MP INQUIRY #2003-29
QUESTION:
NACE Standard MR0175-96, Section 4, includes Paragraph 4.1.1 titled Nickel-Copper
Alloys specifically listing UNS N04400 (K-Monel), UNS N04405, and N05500. These
CRA metals have been omitted from MR0175-2003 except for brief mention under
Section 10 for specific equipment not related to our business. We are a manufacturer of
process gauges, some of which are for use in sour gas environments. These metals
(especially N04400) have always been used in our (and other manufacturers') gauges
for pressure-containing parts having direct exposure to sour gas. Have these materials
been omitted for a reason or are they still acceptable?
ANSWER:
The wrought nickel-copper alloys were removed from the general section of NACE
MR0175 because of concerns from field failures of UNS N05500. It was expected that
ballots over the 6-plus years of drafts would result in the 2003 edition of MR0175
including the reinsertion of UNS N04400 and UNS N04405 into the appropriate
equipment sections. This has not been the case. There has not been a single ballot for
including these alloys. However, the ISO Maintenance Panel has agreed to put forward
for ballot to the ISO Oversight Committee and ISO/TC 67/WG 7 a proposal to include
these two alloys into Paragraph 8.4, Instrumentation and Control Devices. If the ballot
passes, the alloys will be included in a 2004 addendum to ISO 15156/NACE MR01752004 in the table currently numbered A.16.