You can register ASME U-stamp vessels in Australia without compliance to AS1210. By class B do you mean brazed construction or class 2B? Either way they are not equivalent codes but you will need a U-stamp for registration in Western Australia if you choose not to meet the requirements of AS1210. And it must be verified by a local design verifier to ASME VIII or AS1210.
EngAddict,
I respectfully disagree with your comments. Your comments may have been correct prior to the release of AS1210:2010 edition.
FYI gr2vessels' comments in
Things are changing in Australia with the Federal government's push to harmonize the work , health and safety laws. Until recently each state took their own approaoch to pressure equipment design , manufacture and installation, including registration. With the latest Federal legislation the states are trying to get their act together so there are uniform laws in each state.
It depends what state you are trying to have an ASME vessel installed in whether the ASME vessel can be imported without significant redesign requirements. Queensland and Western Australia are well used to ASME vessels being imported for their gas projects ut they do not make it easy.
In short the question should be put to the inpsecting authority. But no, an ASME VIII vessel is not the same as an AS 1210 vessel as the standard covers not only design but manufacture as well. It physically may be the same but the paperwork will be different.
“The beautiful thing about learning is that no one can take it away from you.”
---B.B. King
You can respectfully disagree all you want but it doesn't change the facts. The AS1210 2010 release has nothing to do with vessel registration in Australia. gr2vessels quoted the wrong hydrotest pressure well over a year after the code was released so perhaps it isn't my knowledge that is out of date.. I would say about 90% of the Gorgon project has been designed, manufactured and verified to ASME. Nothing has changed recently either, I have ASME vessels on my desk.
Once an ASME vessel has been registered in WA (or any other state that accepts it) there is nothing stopping it being transferred to another state with no additional verification.
Don't get me wrong, I am not a supporter of allowing ASME vessels into Australia due to quality assurance concerns. However this is why the design verification is required and the importer assumes the responsibility of the manufacturer (so it is in their interest to choose wisely). Luckily the vessels I see of average quality are usually only smaller air and liquid receivers, small separators, etc (class 3 equivalent). All the larger high pressure vessels (class 1 and 1H equivalent) that are specified to be sourced overseas, are usually from large manufacturers from Asia that are used to working with large operators and Australian quality standards so the design, manufacturing and testing is actually pretty good.
Stainer has it correct, contact a local statutory authority or design verifier and they will tell you the specific requirements for registering items of plant with the appropriate statutory authority in the state. Usually when the manufacturer is quoting they give the verifier a call or email to discuss these types of requirements.
I do agree that state authorities may not necessarily reject vessel registration if vessel is not AS1210 compliant. However, if an ASME PV blows up, I suspect that the authorities and design verifier will step backwards faster than you can blink, and point their fingers at the manufacturer.
Gorgon PV spec is written to exceed minimum requirements of AS1210, with a supplement to help guide ASME manufacturers with differences between ASME and AS1210. Can't be absolutely certain about this today, but this was definitely true 2 years ago. I think you'll find that Gorgon PVs comply to ASME VIII (as a main code, as most Gorgon PVs are made outside of Aust), but they'll also comply with AS1210:2010.
If I specified AS1210 as my requirement as a client, and a supplier provides an ASME (and not dual compliant to AS1210), I would be most upset and slap him with an NCR. If he says that my state regulator told him that ASME is equivalent to AS1210 (under AS1200), I'll be having words with my state regulator. There are reasons why AS1210 (and requirements above code) is specified. Biggest item is hydrotest pressure, eg some plant guys want one common (simple) formula. With AS1210:2010, client spec is revised so that the old requirement (1.5x) is met.
Guys,
Please remember that having a vessels design "verified" by a qualified person is only a small part of the total picture and in no way guarantees a safe vessel.
Quality control during fabrication is probably the most important thing to look at in a vessel and if this is not applied correctly then no amount of "design verification" is going to give you a safe vessel.
I worked on Pluto LNG as a QC Inspector and was personally responsible for overseeing 2 months of repair welding on 3 x 96 mm thick pressure vessels.
These vessels were imported into Australia and as far as I am aware had been registered with Worksafe WA.
During installation of internal screens a crack like indication was noted visually and after further investigation with MT over 400 cracks were identified.
How is a "Design Verification" from someone sitting in an office in Perth going to make this vessel safe to use ?
Who reviews the NDT reports to ensure the vessel has been tested correctly ? The EPCM.
Who didn't want to spend extra money on having a full time inspector at the manufacturers yard ? The EPCM.
After registration and installation (and design verification)who decides if the vessel is OK to go into service. The EPCM.
Conflict of interest - very possibly.
For many years in New Zealand the governments statutory authority was M&I (Marine & Industrial) and no pressure vessel could go into service without their approval.
They reviewed all testing done by third party inspection on the vessel prior to it being released.
A combination of something similar to that plus design verification would IMHO go a long way towards guaranteeing a safe vessel,
Regards,
Kiwi
Many years ago I worked on a project where jacketted vessels in ss were made in Singapore. When the jacket was filled with water the internal shell buckled. The vessel was accompanied by inpsection certificates and a full manufacturer's data record book from a well known British inspection agency. All went to prove that anyone with a laser printer can produce a certificate.
“The beautiful thing about learning is that no one can take it away from you.”
---B.B. King
austa,
Of course if you specify AS1210 then it has to meet AS1210. No one is saying ASME is equivalent to AS1210. I have only seen the WaterCorp enforce the old hydrotest requirements on their surge vessels. All oil and gas work uses the new code requirements from what I have seen. Whether there is a specification that enforces AS1210 minimum requirements for ASME designs, or not, it does not affect the registration requirements (but perhaps it should..).
Kiwi,
Design verification is covered by registration of design. Registration of plant requires inspection. The EPCM SHOULD be getting this extra testing done and pay for the modifications with a smile on their face. If you send work oversea (which the EPCMs are enforcing) then you can get it done for around a third to a half of the price. The good manufacturers that don't supply poor quality vessels will be about half the price or just over when delivered. If you choose the cheap overseas manufacturers then expect to pay the difference anyway once you fix all the mistakes. Hence my comment regarding the importer choosing wisely.
The EPCMs are keeping Australian Manufacturers and Engineers out of work, so yes they should bear the responsibility and cost.
Don't get me wrong, I support sticking with the Australian codes for design, manufacture and testing but there is no point arguing the semantics of quality assurance when the question was regarding the current use of ASME vessels in Australia. Will it change in the future, maybe.. but how many incidents have we had with vessels failing based on the current system? The same problem exists with imported materials that are then used by Australian manufacturers, buyer beware and test it yourself.
stainer,
Was this design checked, it should have been picked up earlier? I agree with your point on certificates though, same goes with the form U-1.
