BPV Sect. I, PW-11 and B31.1, 136.3.1 4

[buckroy]

As the EPC Contractor furnishing and assembling a Boiler built in Europe;I have been informed by my client that they are going to radiograph a percentage of the welds on the Boiler piping spools and Boiler External piping spools that were fabricated, inspected, stamped, and certified by the Boiler Manufacturer. This is obviously NDE beyond the requirements of both BPV I and B31.1. My question is: if any indications are found, will I or my supplier be liable for any repairs to these boiler parts which were already accepted and certified by the Manufacturer's Authorized Inspector per the requirements of the codes?
Also, I remember being the Client years ago, with much the same complaint; and I thought they based their answer then on a Code Case, which I can't find now......

 

[GenB]

if it was stamped per ASME Code the Mfr is in compliance
but always responsible for workmanship, in this case
if his NDE Dept did not do the job right and even if stamped he is liable
for any repairs. His inspector/ AI can be in trouble.
NOw any repairs has to be done under NBIC, returned to the Mfr,
or re-fab.
Many customers will not even accept parts that have been repaired,
that is if in the contract conditions.

 

[buckroy]

GenB,
Thanks for the reply; although it wasn't quite what I had hoped for.
Another complication is that neither the BP piping nor the BEP piping requires radiography per either BPV Sect. I or B31.1. The only NDE required is VT. If my client decides to radiograph welds that were only ever required to be Visually Inspected; does your answer remain the same?

 

[blacksmith37]

I hate when lawyers decide tech questions. I am obsolete but I would say that if ordered and certified to VT , it could only be rejected by VT.
You can generally find imperfections when you apply NDE techniques that were not originally required, even to equipment that has performed satisfactorily for years.

 

[GenB]

rare, most BEP requires RT if butt welded.
The answer is still the same for VT, it can have some acceptable indications beyond RT1, unless the indications are really bad, due to welder's qualification/performance then the Mfr can still be responsible.
as per VT,
I just rejected a couple spools for BEP with RT1 and VT mfd by another Company the weld reinforcing was not within Code requirements,
ship them back to the Mfr, grinded off, the same AI signed a corrected data report and everyone was oaky with the result. NBIC/NB was not involved.
I coudn't touch them unless under my R stamp but it was cheaper to send it to the Mfr. who covered the freight as well.

 

[Kiwi2671]

buckroy,
Below is from B31.1 2004 Clause 136.3.1 (not sre if it is the same in later editions of the code)

The degree of examination
and the acceptance standards beyond the requirements
of this Code shall be a matter of prior agreement between
the manufacturer, fabricator, or erector and the Owner.

If the owner wants to radiograph welds (and that is over and above the code requirements) then it has to be agreed between all parties PRIOR to the work being performed.
Hope that helps,
Cheers,
Kiwi

 

[Duwe6]

Bottom line: if radiographic rejects are found on a VT-only portion of the system, the OWNER is liable for all costs of repair.
Reasoning: Fabricator built to specified Code, and work was accepted by 3rd-party Inspector; AI / State Boiler Inspector. Code Data Report verifies this fact. If Owner does more extensive NDT and finds a defect, Owner now is cognizant of a defect in his equipment. In today's legal environment, this defect MUST be addressed, typically by a repair. Because Owner went above the Code of Construction, as Owner specified in the contract, costs of extra NDT and any repairs are on Owner.

 

[Kiwi2671]

I agree with Duwe6 regarding who is responsible.
This is an exerpt from a paper by Walt Sperko on B31.3 5% Random Radiography that I feel is applicable to your situation.

"This footnote says that if the owner wants 100 percent radiographic-quality welds, he needs to specify (and pay for) radiography of those welds. The owner also needs to state this in his specifications to establish prior agreement regarding the extent of radiography required."

If the Owner requested and paid for a piping system that would pass VT and Hydrotest only then you have supplied what they requested and what is required.
If the owner then requests random RT the Owner is basically wanting a 100% defect free piping system for the price of a VT only system.

Full article can be viewed here.

http://www.thefabricator.com/article/testingmeasuring/random-radiography?ID=1129

Regards,
Kiwi

 

[Mr168]

I will agree with the above for the most part. However, I personally know of at least one instance where the customer was able to backcharge for rework based on additional NDE. However, this was an instance where the additional NDE revealed not just defects, but gross negligence and a series of nonconformances with both code and quality programs.