Basis for Rejecting Pitted Pipe 1

[engrpiper]

During construction of a new power plant it was observed that a section of "new" pipe was extremely pitted (after being welded in, only the outside surface has been inspected). We understand that it was at the mill for three years and then shipped to the construction site. The AE is claiming that the pipe meets the "code". Someone in construction management is reviewing our spec as a basis to reject this pipe as not being in new condition.

Does B31.1 state that piping materials must be new? I have not found such a statement.

Would the A106B ASTM spec provide the means to reject this pipe based on the amount of pitting (pit depth, pit density, etc)?

Thanks in advance for your comments.

 

[brimmer]

You can use ASME B31G to dertermine remaining strength of pitted areas. If the pipe is that pitted, I don't know how you can accept this a new piping though. You will need depth and length measurements of pitted areas to use B31, remember interaction rules...

 

[metengr]

engrpiper;
New has nothing to do with this. You obviously have pipe that was either manufactured with poor workmanship or was not stored properly. Just because new material is shipped does not necessarily mean it is free of defects. Shame on the site QC personnel for not performing a proper receipt inspection of items.

Your only way out is to review the ASTM/ASME materials specification for some type of workmanship clause. However, you may have a tough time enforcing this because your organization accepted the pipe for installation.

 

[BigInch]

Passing "inspection" by anybody[/] is no guarantee that an item is indeed acceptable and does not make the supply of faulty material acceptable either. It simply means that no defects were observed. (OK, I agree maybe this time the inspector was blind, but still).

If it was an electronic device that passed shipping & receiving's inspection and even precommissioning examination, but had an internal part that blew up when it was started on full load, would you still say, "you accepted it, so its yours"?

Check the substandard box, and reject it. You don't have to prove its not acceptable. Its the AE that has the burden of proof that it is.

**********************
"Pumping accounts for 20% of the world’s energy used by electric motors and 25-50% of the total electrical energy usage in certain industrial facilities."-DOE statistic (Note: Make that 99% for pipeline companies)

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.live.com/

 

[ScottyUK]

Most contracts include a blanket clause along the lines of "All materials shall be new and of first quality" and a similar clause with respect to quality of workmanship. Get checking the project contract and see what ammo you have to work with.


----------------------------------

If we learn from our mistakes I'm getting a great education!

 

[SJones]

ASTM A106 does, indeed, provide a somewhat weak basis to evaluate and accept/reject the pipe. The supplier should be requested to provide objective evidence that the stipulated requirements of the specification, in terms of 'exploration of a sufficient number of visual surface imperfections to provide reasonable assurance that they have been properly evaluated with respect to depth' have been met. You can then argue over 'sufficient' and 'reasonable' or let somebody loose with a D-meter and gather your own evidence.

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

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

 

[eyec]

as stated above ...check your spec for support in rejecting the pipe.

you may need to better define "extremely pitted". does it infringe on minimum wall thickness requirements?

is it worth it to your project schedule to just replace that section of pipe and argue about the suspect section at a later date?

do you share any responsibility for the incoming inspection failure to reject the pipe, or your CWI for not suspecting sub-standard pipe when it was in the fit-up stage?

sorry for having only questions and no answers but I think you will hear these same questions again from management (yours, the AE's) and litigators.

Steven C
Senior Member
ThirdPartyInspections.com

 

[JohnBreen]

Perhaps it would also be good to do a PMI on the pipe as the sort of corrosion you describe seems to be excessive for that steel. You could reject it based upon deficiencies found in the chemistry.

 

[Ron]

Agree with SJones...use a D-meter and gather enough thickness data to reject it on that basis alone.

 

[SNORGY]

We just went through - still are going through - a situation exactly like this where I am working. Since it is still a controversy and as yet unresolved by stakeholders, I won't go into detail. However, the approach we took in our case for forged fittings supplied to the SA-234/SA-234M material specification in ASME Section II Part A, was to invoke the standard SA-960 in order to apply the criteria for rejectable defects. If you do this, it will likely open up some debate as to the diagnostic method to be used. The defects to look for are pits, laminar reflectors below the surface, and lap seams. You can also request additional NDE as well as some destructive testing on rejected specimens, including micrography and laboratory PMI testing for trace chemistry if you are not 100% convinced that the materials are traceable back to any material certificates (via heat numbers).

Regards,

SNORGY.

 

[athomas236]

I agree with ScottyUK's approach, this in my view is a contractual issue.

Regards,

athomas236

 

[SNORGY]

True enough, athomas236.

However, even such a contractual clause would need to be worded very specifically, because (paraphrasing) "...new and of first quality..." would legally invoke the "as new" acceptance criteria and tolerances published in the governing material specifications and standards. The supplier and fabricator could make arguments - backed up by these specifications and standards - that (again paraphrasing) "...just because they don't look as good as what you normally see or have become accustomed to seeing, they are within acceptance criteria...". Eventually, you end up having to refer back to a quantifiable yardstick. The Purchaser's discomfort and uncertainty - however well-founded they might be (and probably are) - provide no legal substance towards forcing a supplier to accept the rejection of the pipe or fittings to his / her account.

Regards,

SNORGY.

 

[BigInch]

Search the Contractual docs for as many words as you can find within this phrase, "inspection by Company shall not constitute unconditional approval or acceptance by Company and shall not alleviate Contractor from his obligations to supply materials to the highest quality standards... "

I'm sure its in there. Well.. at least its in every contract I ever wrote.

**********************
"Pumping accounts for 20% of the world’s energy used by electric motors and 25-50% of the total electrical energy usage in certain industrial facilities."-DOE statistic (Note: Make that 99% for pipeline companies)

http://virtualpipeline.spaces.live.com/

 

[racookpe1978]

Still left unasked: What does theinside of the pipe look like?

Get a boroscope, camera, and a recorder inside the pipe. Pitting inside the pipe will only increase the speed of corrosion through the pipe. Deep rust (outside) almost certainly means standing water, snow, salt, dirt, rust, dead mice, rats, and sleeping QA inspectors inside the pipe.

 

[SJones]

Any lawyers looking in and rubbing their hands in anticipation?

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

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