Deviation from Code (or contracually binding standard) 2

[jdogg05]

Hi anyone and everyone,

As I understand it, codes are governmentally regulated and enforced minimum requirements, that are illegal to deviate from. Standards are well established criteria for design, fabrication, testing, etc. that do not have any legal implications but are generally adhered to for their inherent usefullness. However, it is also my understanding that standards become "mandatory" when incorporated into a business contract.

I have 2 questions:

1. In the case of a business contract is this "mandatory" requirement equivalent to the legally necessitating nature of a code? i.e. does it essentially become a code?

2. More importantly, in this contractual case referring to "mandatory standards", is it possible to deviate from the standard? I have heard wishy washy answers regarding the necessity for an engineer to "sign off" on a deviation. Is a deviation even possible/allowed? What are the legal/contractual implications of a deviation? If it is possible, what exactly does the engineer typically need to do and why can't anyone just deviate?

In my particular case I am referring to B 31.3 (ASME).

Just fyi, I am a co-op engineering student working onsite in the oilsands of Alberta.

Thanks so much for any help!

 

[MrTank]

In my experience, jurisdiction is always the king. Check the 2013 National Board Synopsis of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Laws, Rules and Regulations adapted by each state of the United States and provinces in Canada . Read the link that I have provided below and check the specific state or province and from there you will see which standards/code should be used. The section "RULES FOR CONSTRUCTION AND STAMPING" will tell you which edition of B31.3 to use.

http://www.nationalboard.org/SiteDocuments/NB-370.pdf

1. In the case of a business contract is this "mandatory" requirement equivalent to the legally necessitating nature of a code? i.e. does it essentially become a code?

It becomes mandatory whenever the jurisdiction adapts the code.

2. More importantly, in this contractual case referring to "mandatory standards", is it possible to deviate from the standard? I have heard wishy washy answers regarding the necessity for an engineer to "sign off" on a deviation. Is a deviation even possible/allowed? What are the legal/contractual implications of a deviation? If it is possible, what exactly does the engineer typically need to do and why can't anyone just deviate?

First of all, if the jurisdiction tells you which code to use, you have to abide by those rules. Otherwise, your AI won't sign off. In some cases where the code says that they do not have all the rules in the book, sound engineering judgment shall be used. This is when FEA or other alternative approach arises.







-MrTank

“I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.”
-Thomas A. Edison

 

[jdogg05]

MrTank thanks for the response.

I reviewed the "2013 National Board Synopsis of Boiler and Pressure Vessel Laws" you sent me, but I am still a little unsure about deviations from STANDARDS stipulated in ASME B31.3. I understand that if my particular jurisdiction adopts a certain ASME standard as code, it becomes the bare minimum. But I am referring to when contracts are established implementing ASME or any other standards organization in their business contract.

What I am really trying to say is this: if the jurisdictional code is not violated, is it legally/contractualy possible to deviate from the ASME B31.3 standards imposed by the contract?

Maybe my question is too particular to the province I am working in, but if you think you know the answer please let me know!

And thanks again.

 

[DRWeig]

My opinion: Having a standard listed as mandatory within the contract between you and your client does not turn that standard into a code (law, ordinance). It does, however, make compliance with the standard mandatory or else you'll be in breach of your contract.

Difference:

Violate a code, you'll be shot down at inspection time and be forced to correct it. Perhaps also you'll have to pay a fine. That's you versus the city / county / state in court if you want to fight it.

Violate a contract provision and you'll be subject to the penalties spelled out in the contract -- even if all local codes are met. That's you versus your client in court if you want to fight it.

It's a moot point if the code in effect in your jurisdiction is more stringent than the contractually-required standard. In that case, you satisfy both by meeting the code. If you meet the code but the contractually-required standard is the more stringent one, you're not fullfilling the terms of the contract and can be penalized (or not paid).

Best to you,

Goober Dave

Haven't see the forum policies? Do so now: Forum Policies

 

[MrTank]

First of all, you have to tell us what you mean by " deviations from STANDARDS stipulated in ASME B31.3". You have to be a little bit more precise in this area. I can not say yes or no in the deviation as I do not know particularly which case are you talking about.

-MrTank

“I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work.”
-Thomas A. Edison

 

[TGS4]

In Alberta, the Code had the force of law. If someone wants to "deviate" from a mandatory aspect of the Code, then they are, in effect, breaking the law. It's very simple.

If I am asked to "deviate" from a mandatory provision of any Code referenced in the Safety Codes Act, I ask, in all seriousness to the questioner, "are you asking me to break the law?" That usually stops any if this crap.

That said, there are many provisions that are not necessarily mandatory, but recommended. That puts you more into discussions and negotiations with your ABSA representative. But they usually have the final say, so without their blessing, things don't go into operations.

Do you have a real (hypothetical) example?

 

[SJones]

With regard to status of 'contractual standards,' take a look at ISO 9001, subclauses 7.2 Customer-related processes, 8.3 Control of nonconforming product. They indicate how contractual requirements are to be understood, and deviations dealt with, within a quality management system.

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/8/83b/b04

All answers are personal opinions only and are in no way connected with any employer.

 

[stanweld]

If you fail to meet contract requirements in the US, basic Contract Law, applicable to each state is applicable. You open yourself to Civil litigation brought about be the Purchaser. The Purchaser will most likely withhold a portion of payment if the deviation (effectively a Contract Change) is not resolved in writing by the Purchaser.

Trust me, do not disregard the Contract; seen millions lost by the Contractor when deviations were not appropriately approved in writing by the Customer.

 

[jdogg05]

Thanks for the replies everyone. SJones when I get some time I will look through the "ISO 9001, subclauses 7.2 Customer-related processes, 8.3 Control of nonconforming product".

I have digged in ABSA a bit and I think I found some valuable and relevant information. ABSA has a Safety Codes Act Flow Chart that guides you through to determine whether or not the jurisdictional safety codes apply to the equipment in question. This flowchart directs you to PESR (Pressure Equipment Safety Regulations) act and also the PEEO (Pressure Equipment Exemption Order).

If you move through the flowchart it guides you to the correct conclusion. Also, in the PESR in section 23, it says "If a piece of equipment cannot be made to comply with the codes and standards declared in force, the Administrator may register the design if it is as safe as or safer than it would be if it complied with the codes and standards declared in force."

Thoughts on this?

 

[TGS4]

jdogg05 - the threshold for "as safe as" is high. You will be involving ABSA Design Registration as well as the field inspector. It's possible, but it is also highly likely that you cannot afford the time and effort that it will take to achieve it.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt (both for successfully getting an "as safe as" in - 14-18 months later, as well as getting one rejected outright - even after appealing to Chief Inspector and Administrator)

Glad to see you using the Safety Codes Act Flow Chart - very useful. Also, reading the Act and the Regulations (as you are doing) is very good. Well done.

 

[jdogg05]

TGS4 thanks so much for the information.

What got this started is the idea of using methanol instead of glycol (or vice-versa) for a hydro test.

 

[TGS4]

Interesting - care to share more of the details?

 

[jdogg05]

So basically the issue was that "glycol", because of the chloride content, would cause the stainless steel piping to corrode. Converseley, Methanol 50/50 would yield a solution with a flash point of 29C, and ASME B31.3 section 345.4 states that "the flash point shall be at least 49C, and consideration shall be given to the test environment."

The last part of that clause, "consideration shall be given to the test environment", seems quite ambiguous. Also the temperature in Northern AB in the winter time WILL NOT get even close to 29C; therefore, the methanol solution seems adequete.

 

[TGS4]

Yup - you're in a bit of a pickle there. 345.4 has the "shall" word in it. When that paragraph of the Code was written, they were worried about hotter places, not colder places. I certainly feel for you.

Is there another option (naptha, etc) that might work in your situation, that you would have sufficient quantities of?

 

[SJones]

Can you not get 'sensible' about the flash point temperature with somebody? Will it actually affect the quality of the pipework? Incidentally, how does the chloride content of the glycol compare to that of the water to be used?

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/8/83b/b04

All answers are personal opinions only and are in no way connected with any employer.

 

[moltenmetal]

I sincerely doubt that stainless piping tested at temepratures colder than freezing will be "corroded", or even at risk of later embrittlement, by any quantity of chloride you might find in a water/glycol mix. You need to do a thorough job of removing any residual hydrotest fluid which is not the process fluid after the test, regardless what fluid you use. If you have to do that by evaporation only, glycol/water would be a poor choice whether there was chloride in it or not.

You can certainly get pure ethylene or propylene glycol and make a mixture with deionized water such that the mixture has no significant amount of chloride in it. You could add the corrosion inhibitors to the mixture later if you wanted to use it as a circulating antifreeze- and if not, you'd need to concern yourself with proper disposal of that mixture after the test anyway.

Unless residue of evaporation is a concern, personally I wouldn't like to see a toxic flammable material used in a proof test. Though the mixture will be combustible it'll still be toxic. I wince at the thought of what would become of that 50/50 water/methanol mix after a failure should one occur- and after the test even if it passes. Or perhaps you intend to add some blue dye and have windshield washer antifreeze for your car for a long time?

 

[jdogg05]

Thanks everyone for the input. I now have a better understanding of the generic jurisdictional code and standard requirements as well the low-level details of my hydrotest inquiry.