Engagement of ASME Authorized Inspector if vessel is not ASME Certified "U" Designator

[MUHAMMAD FAHAD RANA]

Back Ground:

At the time of Bidding stage, End User has added statement, "Manufacturing of Surge Vessels as per ASME Sec VIII Div-1 2021 Code".

We have understanding to above statement as "Manufacturer has to fabricate surge vessel accordance with ASME Sec VIII Div-1 2021 code without ASME Certification U" Designator, hence no involvement of Authorized Inspector required.

Question:

At the mid stage of project, End user wants involvement of Authorized Inspector and "U" Designator certification. With argument, he said show me reference or evidence in ASME Sec VIII Div-1 which show Authorized Inspector involvement not required if vessel supposed to be not ASME Certified "U" Designator.

This is totally scenario of understanding which client is failed to understand. Experts, Guide how to tackle down this issue.


BR,
Fahad

 

[david339933]

If the 2021 Code was current when you bid the job, you have nothing to back you up. The Code requires an AI and they said to build it to Code.
To go from "Manufacturing of Surge Vessels as per ASME Sec VIII Div-1 2021 Code" to no AI and no 'U' stamp is ridiculous and totally on you.

 

[weldstan]

Did you state (clarify) in your bid that the vessels would not be U-stamped?

 

[MUHAMMAD FAHAD RANA]

@david339933

We bid job 2022 at that time ASME Sec VIII Div-1 2021 code latest one.

So, as per your understanding, Client is right we have to involve A.I and certify vessels to meet ASME Sec VIII Div-1 2021 code requirements.

But, it was not agreed in contract documents. Just writing to comply ASME Sec VIII Div-1 code its mean vessel has to be U Stamp?

Pls elaborate.

 

[MUHAMMAD FAHAD RANA]

@weldstan
Some how, Bidding team failed to clarify with client regarding ASME certification.

Client consultant already approved design and drawings.

 

[IdanPV]

As per my understanding, you were asked to construct the vessels as per ASME Sec VIII Div-1.
Refer to ASME Sec VIII Div-1 Foreword:
"Construction, as used in this Foreword, is an all-inclusive term comprising materials, design, fabrication, examination, inspection, testing, certification and overpressure protection"

 

[david339933]

If you don't have an AI or stamping, you have not met the requirements of the Code.

 

[KevinNZ]

This is legal/contact problem not an engineering one. In our country, regulations referring to manufacture to ASME does not require U stamp. Everything else applies including inspectors who are qualified to the equivalent to the ASME requirements. Purchases can contact in U stamp but no one does.

 

[weldstan]

Does your company posses a U-Stamp Certificate? If so, I think you will need to comply.
If not, that's another legal story.

 

[DVWE]

Does your company posses a U-Stamp Certificate?

That’s the real question right there.

The devil is in the details; she also wears prada.

 

[DekDee]

As per KevinNZs response it is a legal / contractual requirement based on jurisdiction.
New Zealand does not require, one state in Australia (Victoria) does not require.
I have only read on the internet so unsure of veracity but are Texas, Louisiana,Idaho and South Carolina non mandatory states ?
Regarding the Australian example above.
We are currently having multiple pressure vessels fabricated all over the world for an oil refinery upgrade in Queensland, Australia.
Some are manufactured in accordance with ASME VIII Div 1 and some are manufactured in accordance with AS 1210 (Australian PV code).
For Plant Registration in Queensland the U stamp is mandatory for ASME VIII and this is reflected in contract documents.
A similar refinery upgrade (desulfurization)is currently underway in the state of Victoria.
The U stamp is not mandatory so it is up to the Owner / End User as to whether or not they include the requirement in the contract documents.

If we look at the question of " Does your company possess a U stamp certificate" ?
My question would be - "If your company has a U stamp and you are fabricating a vessel destined for Victoria, Australia and there is no contractual requirement is it mandatory to affix the U stamp ?"
Cheers,
Shane

 

[JStephen]

The way I read the above, the intent was to furnish an ASME vessel, which would require the U-stamp.
This would entirely be a contractual issue.
Whether the jurisdiction requires it is a different issue.
It is possible to specify a tank or vessel that complies with ASME design but is not required to meet the full ASME code. But in that case, it is necessary to specify which parts are to be complied with, which can be omitted, etc. And to me, the statement given is not of this type.
I would expect that in jurisdictions where a U-stamp is required, it is perfectly legal to BUY a non-stamped vessel, just not legal to use it.

 

[ethan18]

Something similar happened at my workplace. Contract specified that: The equipment shall be manufactured conforming to ASME Section III NB. Some members in customer team felt that this automatically implies that all raw material & welding material should only be procured from ASME certified suppliers - i.e. Material Organizations(MO). Customer does not require 'N' stamping on the vessel, nor is ASME BPVC a statutory requirement in the country. The only route through which ASME codes become applicable is the contract document. And contract did not specify that procurement should be done from MO.

Anyhow, buying from MOs is costly, time-consuming (though, hassle-free). So, we, the fabricator, resisted customer's contention that all procurement should be done from MO. Ultimately, it all boiled down to - if the customer really desires procuring from MO, they should specify this clearly in future contracts. For the current contract, we need not necessarily procure from MOs.

So, to answer OP's question, IMO, if the vessel is not going to be stamped by ASME mark, then it cannot be assumed that each and every code requirement is automatically applicable, unless specified clearly by customer in contract. Like, others said, it is more a legal/contract issue than a code issue.