Dear All,

We have designed, manufactured some Quick Opening Closure according to ASME code but without partial stamp.
Materials are delivered on site and now the client request us to stamp the QOC; it's possible to stamp now the QOC?

We are a stamp holders.

Thanks
A.

Sure, as long as it has not been put into service.

_________________
Konrad Anikiel

How can I stamp the goods?

Materials are on site, design and manufacturing are finsiched and no point have been verifed by ASME Inspector.

Well, that's between you and your AI. Now you will have a rare opportunuty to check whether your AI is a friendly person that you can count on, or not. On the other side your AI will have a rare opportunity to see whether the company he's dealing with, is a collection of responsible and serious people, or bunch of guys who only care about pushing the crap through the gate.

In my view, the problem is a paper problem, but I don't know your product. The AI might need to see it before signing the U2 off. In this case I don't think it has to be done necessarily at your place. But this is only my private thought. Call your AI and discuss this. If it's impossible to him, it might be possible to the others- find his competition and ask what can be done.

_________________
Konrad Anikiel

That is an interesting case,

1) why does the customer order it now with a stamp?

2) has it been welded, or just machined?

3) Do you have Field site in your scope of Certificate?

The code allows Stamping only in the scope of the certificate.
Theoretically it is required to call the QAC back to shop, issue an NCR and get the Inspector involved in checking Code compliance.

DK

Dear Dr. Koebl

We have designed and manufactured according to Code but without stamp.

1) Customers have done a mistake, ordering QOC without partial stamp.
2) QOC are manufactured and welded to pressure vessel.
3) We haven't field site in our scope.

Thanks for your answer,
Andrea

Andrea, without code book at the moment, I can say that I would try this sort of "defence line":
1. ASME certificates limit certain aspects of manufacturing (welding, brazing) to a specific address. I would try to form a well- argumented statement that inspector's duties like visual inspecting welds don't have to be performed on site.
2. You would have to agree with your customer that your partial data report would not include the manway. This way, your AI would not have issues with this welded by someone else. The manway would have to be included in your customer's MDR.
3. Of course, pressure test is excluded from partial MDR- it will be included in the final MDR.
4. It could be beneficial to quickly sign service agreement with AIA of your customer, so both MDRs (your partial and your customer's final one) would be sorted out at a single visit.

I will check this on Monday, but this should be doable. Have you contacted your AI so far?
cheers,

_________________
Konrad Anikiel

Dear Konrad,

your answer is very amitious, but not quite complete.

Imagine you buy a new car, let us say a BMW Z4, and two weeks later you return and state that the car does not have enough seats, demanding three more seats. I know the example is not perfect, but it is an example only.

In the vessel case, my picture is: the customer purchased a QAC without inspection and stamp. They received the QAC and welded it to the vessel. At the day of final inspection the AI rejects the vessel for good reason.

The Code requires that the AI must be given the opportunity to establish his hold points BEFORE start of fabrication, which has not been done here. In case of QACs, we have many problems in the design according to paragraph UG-35. Most QAC manufacturers keep the calculations confidential, this avoids the vessel manufacturer to certify.
Visual inspection and dimensional inspection are just required. The QAC Manfuacturer's Ai will refuse to sign just the papers.

The clean solution is to build a new QAC, and remove the old one.
An alternative is not to stamp the complete vessel.

In real life I would suggest that the vessel manufacturer should sort out this problem. When the two inspectors and the manufacturers are involved, there will be a solution, provided every party is interested in the solution.

Maybe you remember my opinion on "non-stamped" items, "generally" in accordance with the Code. My experience is, that there are normally more deviations from the COde ( maybe material, maybe UG-35, maybe welding, maybe NDE, etc.) This item seems too hot to be solved here.

Dirk.

Dirk,
Right, hold points in the quality plan! What would be they then? Any visual inspection that is not possible to do at the end, such as internal roots of closing welds? In real life, it happens that one guy checks the documents and the other guy signs the MDR (plus some personal activity, like visual inspection or pressure test witnessing). They act virtually independently, making it not a big difference what comes first. I really can't see any technical reason to reject an NCR. Sure, the NCR would have to be written after a thorough analysis of the design and relevant requirements, and we won't solve Andrea's problem here without his cooperation. But let me look into UG-35 on Monday and have some thoughts, as an exercise


Let's not solve the problem from its end. The closure has to be sorted out first, then the final vessel will suddenly become a nice stuff!

PS And I do agree that the simpliest solution is to say to the customer, that they got what they had ordered.

_________________
Konrad Anikiel