U1 With Violations

[bigviking0001]

We purchase unused vessels from "U" shops and add "repairs" to fit them up for use (we are an "R" shop). My question is, if a vessel comes in from a U shop with a U1 and we know there is a violation,what are we required to do? Additionally, if we have to do a repair on the piece that is the violation, does that change our responasbility? ie, do we have to repair the original violation? What I expect to see is non-code material used in the construction of a vessle who's original code of construction is ASME 2007 Add 2008.
Thanks

 

[jte]

Well, what is the right thing to do, ethically? You are (I presume) an engineer, and as an engineer it is your responsibility to protect the welfare of the general public. You are now aware of a code violation. You can bury the problem, or you can highlight the problem. If something goes wrong years later, and you get hauled into court, what will you say when you are sitting in the witness stand?

I would suggest opening a dialogue with the AIA which signed off on the U1 form.

jt

 

[bigviking0001]

Thanks jt,
I have already contacted the AIA body for this vessel. I know the "right" thing to do. The problem is, my management may not. It will cost to correct and without specific guidlines as to legal requirements, they most likely will not want to pay for the repairs. What I am looking for is some muscle to put behind my demand that it be correct. If anyone has ASME code or NBIC statutes to site, that would give me some power. In any event, I will not sign the R! if it is not right..

 

[jte]

ASME and NBIC have little to do with legal authority. They are mandatory only when someone else decides they are:

Laws or regulations issued by municipality, state, provincial, federal, or other enforcement or regulatory bodies having jurisdiction at the location of an installation establish the mandatory applicability of the Code rules, in whole or in part, within their jurisdiction.

So… you could ethically “pass the buck” to the jurisdiction in which these critters will be installed. At that point, you’ve raised the flag, let the jurisdiction be the hammer. That’s their job.

jt

 

[rumandcola]

Is there any reason you can't simply send this back to the shop for a replacement. If you paid a U-stamp shop for a code compliant vessel you shouldn't be accepting anything less than that.

 

[DG72]

What's the error? The exchanger could have been built exactly to spec and an error was made on the U1. Typically, the U1 should be sent back to the original fabricator for correction. A corrected copy is generated with the change signed by the A.I.

 

[bigviking0001]

The violations are welding non-code material to a PRI. We know that the material is non-code as we have to supply it to the U1 shop via another corp. entity. I work for a large corp. which has several layers of Beaurocracy and my fear is that when these vessels begin manufacture, they will not be allowed to return to the U shop for repair. Fortunately, I have been given the task of preparing the production drawings for the U shop and am in hopes that I can eliminate the error. So as specifier now, it becomes an ASME code issue that I can specify.
Thanks for all the input. We were always prepared to do the right thing, it was just going to come down to how what it was going to cost us.

 

[vesselfab]

non-code material

what do you mean?

attachments do not have to be listed in section II

as long as you can prove what it is and not over 35% carbon, i think you are fine.

but again, I don't know what you are welding