Fraudulent ASME Material 2

[muld0020]

What recourse is there to the pressure vessel fabricator if material supplied by a vendor is determined to be fraudulent? Where do I start looking for information?

We are talking about pressure boundary parts in ASME Sec VIII D1 Heat Exchangers (TEMA/HEI standards), with materials purchased to ASME Sec II requirements. The material was intentially mis-represented so it was not easy to identify (came with CMTR's) and shipment was accepted nothing out of the ordinary until installed.

What are the quality requirements of a company that is selling material they are "certifying" to ASME Sec II specification? Do they need a third party certified quality program (like ASME/ISO) to sell this material?

What protection is there from company's that sign off on certifications, say they follow the ASME specification and ANST-TC-1A required ASTM NDE practices, yet can not provide any verification or documentation that either was followed?

Any input/direction/past-experiances would be helpful.

 

[metengr]

This is really a contractual matter and must be dealt with by your engineering, procurement and possibly legal groups. You better be sure about your allegations. If they prove to be correct, you can contact the Conformance committee within ASME B&PV Code and file a complaint.

 

[Frank1344]

BS EN 10204 / ISO 10474 might be the ones you are looking for.

 

[MJCronin]

This topic has been discussed repeatedly on these fora....

Muld..... where is the company located that sold you the heat exchangers ?

If it is a USA fabricator, you have contract law on your side and a strong case for a quick award of damages. (Even if the components were purchased internationally)

If you saved lots of money and time by purchasing a HX from outside of the US (with, of course, internationally supplied components).....well,.... ummmmm... tell us in a few years about how well you made out

 

[chicopee]

Chinese counterfeit material??

 

[muld0020]

I searched for results on this forum, but didn't see anything about this problem. I'm trying to find direction in the CODE to what options are available to us.

The company that manufactured the pressure boundary part used in the HX is located in US. We know that the courts are the next step, but we are trying to understand what else we can do and if it is worth it.

This was such an egregious falsification, I feel obligated to make certain they can not keep selling material. The Conformance commitee sounds like a good option to look at.

Does the manufacturer of any Section II material need a third party certified quality program (like ASME/ISO) to sell this material? Can a company sell mateiral without a quality program? I'm not certain about this. I would think they do, but then again I suppose they could always subcontract out the certified parts (ie NDE and material testing). What does the CODE say?

 

[SnTMan]

muld0020, would you mind telling how the discrepancy was discovered? Under the circumstances, feel free to say no.

Regards,

Mike

 

[muld0020]

Mike - I appreciate the "out".

I think in the future, for these "high dollar HX pressure boundary parts", we will verify that the vendor have a valid ISO/ASME/other acceptable third party approved certificate. The way the company in question markets themselves make it difficult to determine. If they are not ISO (or other) or don't provide certification (major red flag) then we dig deeper and proceed with extreme caution.

We will ask for their quality program, procedures, and documentation of their NDE personel to ANST-TC-1A (when required by applicable ASTM practice), up front. We will ask how long their QC manager has been working there.

I think that would keep you out of our predictament.

 

[stanweld]

Was the material purchased from a manufacturer (mill) or a warehouse supplier? If a warehouse suppier, did it furnish the MTRs under its logo? It is certainly possible that the wrong steel alloy could have been suppplied due to a mix up, noting that you have not defined the falsification.

 

[muld0020]

stanweld - nothing that simple or innocent.

Fraudulent material is defined as material that is certified to a particular specification, grade and class/condition/temper, but does not meet the specification requirements for such.

There is no question as to fraudulent material. The mill we bought it from certified it passed all NDE tests in accordance with the SecII spec. They sent us the certs with material saying it was material to the specification on the Purchase Order.

Without getting into all the details.... they basically knew the material was not to specification (they found defects during manufacture from the NDE they did) but signed off that it was acceptable anyway and shipped it. They thought it was fine because they used an alternate NDE test (without our consent and not allowed in the SecII spec) and no one would be the wiser. No one would have known except for the flaws that were discovered in the material and the subsequent NDE that was done.

Then to make matters worse, after we found the initial defects we started digging deeper and asking for documentation, procedures, etc... it became apparent they had no NDE procedures in place, no quality program, and the testing was not done by qualified individuals.

Hence my original post.

 

[stanweld]

Answers my questions!! However, to be fraudulent, there must be the intent to deceive. I have had materials which were NDE'd per the material specification and P.O. but the automated NDE method used was not appropriately functioning, and the defects were revealed after incorporation into the HX. In that case and virtually all other cases, the maunufacturer made good at replacing the material with acceptably manufactured and tested material. It is noted that I or other purchaser reps verified that the materials were properly tested.

 

[TJOrlowski]

muld0020,
What material are we talking about here?

Was this is piece of raw material that you purchased and were then subsequently fabricating? Or was this some sort of finished component?

-TJ Orlowski

 

[muld0020]

It's one of those legal questions "intent", or maybe it's gross negligence. I have also intentially tried to keep this discussion general. Not put out an essay about our bad situation. If/when we file a claim to the ASME I will advertise that ruling or whatever comes of it to prevent others from getting into this situation.

Is there a fraudulent intent if you say you performed NDE in accordance with ANST-TC-1A, yet you have no record of anyone at your firm with any training in the NDE method? or if you say you meet the ASME Section II specification yet your organization doesn't have copies of the mandatory referenced ASTM practices? or if you advertise you supply ASME or Sec III materials yet do not have a quality program?

I can't find in the CODE if you can certify ASME Material without any sort of third party review for quality. I don't know where to look. I was hoping someone could chime in on that.

 

[SnTMan]

muld0020, this thead may be kind of related: thread292-272438

Regards,

Mike

 

[muld0020]

Thanks Mike. To close out this post, I would say my lesson learned is:

-ASME does not require third party certification of the material supplier.

-The CODE expects the fabricator to verify that the material is what the mill says it is (usually done through certs and your QA etc...). Audit suppliers when a problem is suspected.

-Bad material from bad vendors is out there, so be careful (it is not always country of origin dependent) and request the documentation you need up front. Getting material from an ISO certified mill is preferred, and if they don't have the certification, dig deeper.

 

[EdStainless]

You shove it back down their *****.

If you bought the material, then who did the source inspection?
As buyer you are responsible for assuring conformance to specifications.
If they are not someone that you have dealt with and are familiar with then who did the QA audit?
Why would you assume that the low bidder will choose to comply with all of the rules? Where do you think that their cost advantage comes from?

Testing by one method, finding failures, and then re-testing using another method to pass the material is deceitful and prohibited in many specifications.
Buying from untrustworthy/unproven/unknown sources is equally bad practice.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Plymouth Tube

 

[SnTMan]

As I recently related to a co-worker:

"The world is full of things you can buy. Not all of them are suitable for use in Code vessels."

Buyer beware...

 

[Duwe6]

"Testing by one method, finding failures, and then re-testing using another method to pass the material is deceitful and prohibited in many specifications."

Including ASME. It constitutes fraud when they certify that material. Which means lawyers, court, and a lot of money to collect (hopefully) any money. The supplier can always declaire bankruptcy. USA courts are pretty poor option.

Have a looooong chat with your Purchasing folks. They need to establish a 'relationship' with a select few suppliers and keep their (your) business there. When you 'shop' a purchase req around demanding the absolute lowest price, you are asking for what you got. Shouldn't be that way, but it is and always has been.

On-Time Cheap Top Quality; you can have any two out of these three attributes.