Material Certificates

[Lupino]

Hello ,

we are valve manufacturer , I received an NCr from or End user which claims that the Material Certificates (3.1 )are not under the NAME OF OUR Factory.
the certs are under the name of our supplier.
we provided them every evidences to show that we purchased the material through their approved supplier lists but they still insist on having the factory name on the certificate .
I found on EN 10204 3.1 standard which stated that the 3.1 certs can be transfered by manufacturer.... we stamped , signed and approved the MTRs along with declaration letter but they still holding the valves and not accepting the certificates.

any thoughts or suggestion will be really appreciated , what would you do if the end user ignores the standards?

thank you

 

[Danlap]

Hello,

It is wise to ask the reason of rejection form end user. But I think, end user has some valid point as well.
What is the reason for your company transferring the certificate not on their behalf (yes, the certificate at the end have some of your stamp and memorandum from your company)? And is it sufficient shall there is disclaimer e.g. valve cracked open and causing fatality that some party might be liable for tangible damage?
Your interpretation of standard is not entirely correct. When it is concerning quality, end user may have their own preference to ensure such quality issues (if there is any) can be addressed asap without bureaucracy hassle.
For instanece: If there is a problem with chemical composition for carbon equivalent for A105N and subject for rejection, can your supplier fix it? In almost all cases cannot since they don’t have the foundry capability, inspection capability and field norms related. In the end the better argument wins but it is almost for sure not a win-win solution

Easy fix: make your own 3.1. certificate with nominated client is your supplier. Whether your supplier transfer it to another client (end user), it is widely acceptable.

My experiences:
-Order: Monel valve that is Ultrasonic and assess for cracking
Path: (multiple) foundries with their own mill certificate – claimed to be X-rayed and assessed (signed by some unknown inspector) with cover letter of the parent valve company – assembled and pressure tested by sister company – supplied to nominated supplier whom further issue material cert 3.1.
Findings: valve leaking from body cracks after 3 months in installation  NCR issued directly to parent company (this is a well-known manufacturer)
Output: foundry black listed – new valve sends with urgency with X-ray and other NDE without cost - reputation damage on the parent company
-Standard can be sometimes vague and cause confusion
Bore of 1”-1500# gate valve shall be minimum 22,7 mm. No clear threshold what is the maximum as long as the wall thickness is minimum 7 mm. supplier says their valve ID bore for 1” is 30 mm and widely accepted. End user said: nope the Cv value will be different and the inner ring of spiral wound gasket will be crooked upon installation

When there is a dispute over wording in standards it is wise to aim for a common solution

Kind regards,
MR
End user – ex. Manufacturer – ex. Service company

https://nosuchvalve.com

All valves will last for years, except the ones that were poorly manufactured; are still wrongly operated and or were wrongly selected

http://www.eng-tips.com/faqs.cfm?&rat1=2&fid=376

 

[Lupino]

thanks danlap,

that was really great .
we are actually head quarter and this project is being handled by our branch factory in the area. the end user is absolutely very restricted on every single detail but they have always accepted those certs until three weeks ago suddenly they start rejecting.
every NCRs always issued to us since more than 20 years that we are working with this end user.
but I have to admit , I cant totally disagree with them.

thanks for your respond it was very helpful.