NDE reports & MTC

[unclebensrice]

Hi all,

Most of our purchase orders specify that MTC and NDE reports are to be submitted by the supplier. However, most of our suppliers are just content with submitting the MTC citing that the MTC itself mentions the NDE results i.e. ultrasonic satisfactory.

So my question is this : is the MTC enough or do i still need to insist that they submit separate NDE reports corroborating the test results mentioned in the MTC.

Thanks again guys.

 

[SJones]

What would you do with the reports if they were supplied? If you do not specify what constitutes an 'NDT report', you will continue to get the manufacturer's interpretation of it that aligns with documents such as EN 10168

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

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

 

[unclebensrice]

If the NDE reports were supplied they would:

(1) fulfill the documentation aspect of the purchase order.

(2) provide evidence that indeed NDE testing was performed on the material.

Now with regards to the need to specify NDE in the Purchase Order, if the supplier refers to the material specification himself he will know what NDE test to perform.

For example, in SA-106 it says either ultrasonic, eddy current, magnetic flux etc can be used in stead of hydrostatic test so I don't see the need to specify the exact NDE test to be performed in the PO.

Also I believe that MTCS conforming to EN 10204 3.1 must be accompanied by NDE reports.

Thanks SJONES. I don't know should I just ask the end user to remove the words " NDE reports" from the PO descriptions ?

I mean what's the normal practice ?? Are MTC supposed to be submitted with NDE reports as back up or are they good enough on their own ??

 

[SJones]

If you read EN 10204, you will note that it simply states 'indication of results of specific inspection'. That is exactly what you are getting and, by the way, giving you evidence that the NDT was performed! You don't need to specify the test method, you need to specify the inspection document content if you feel that you need the actual records! Quote ASTM E216 for UT: 'when a report is required, it shall contain as much information as is mutually considered adequate'.

In pipe mills, for example, it can be a difficult request because of the computerised systems involved. A one off forging could be a different matter. Like I said, what is the inherent value of the actual NDT report in the inspection document package?

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

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

 

[unclebensrice]

Honestly speaking SJONES the only inherent value I find in the NDE reports being submitted is to fulfill the "NDE reports required" criteria of the Purchase order spec which like I said was created by the end user not by our department

the PO description goes something like this " MTC, chem analysis report & NDE reports required."

I feel that the description is quite redundent since the chemical analysis results and the NDE results are like you said already declared in the MTC.

I just read up on EN 10204 3.1 which entails a statement of compliance with the order, with indication of results of specific NDE inspection. It doesn't require that inspection records are submitted, just the results of the inspection which i guess is on the MTC. So yes you're right.

Thanks again SJONES. I'll try to get the end user to just stipulate MTC and delete all the other unecessary stuff"

 

[Duwe6]

Or buy it to ASME "SA-xx" specifications. Everything is carefully delineated, and the CMTR is required to have all the pertinant information. This certification covers all required testing, like hydro testing and nde. Keeps life simple.

 

[SJones]

Don't think that will do it. What we are discussing is what, exactly, constitutes an 'NDT report'. You get what you ask for, or don't ask for, as the case may be.

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

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

 

[unclebensrice]

Duwe and Steve,

This is exactly how the statement appears in the purchase order:

"...Vendor docs: MTC required, Mech test reports required, Chem analysis reports required, Hydrostatic test reports required, NDE reports required..."

I know what you're thinking guys, how come separate reports for mech test, chem analysis & NDE are needed on top of the MTC when all their results are already declared in the MTC itself as per SA-XXX. Kind or redundant yeah ?

I agree with you...and that is why i'm working to condense the above description to read only "MTC required".

However something happened yesterday that made me think otherwise. We purchased a couple of ball and gate valves ok. The supplier submitted only the MTC which declared that hydrostatic test was conducted as per API 598 and passed. However since the PO stipulates hydrostatic test reports I insisted that they submit those reports on top of the MTC. As it turns out, the gate valves in the hydrostatic test reports/records showed that it was only tested for seat and shell, NO BACKSEAT !! how can that be !!i thought the MTC declared is successfuly passed !! see the contradiction.

So now you see why the test records are important. Because we give the suppliers the benefit of the doubt. Even though this was approved supplier..because i insisted on records..they were exposed.

 

[TenPenny]

Would it not depend on what you ask for by way of NDE reports?

You are the one asking for them, it's up to you to specify if that means simply the MTCs, or if there is something else you want.

 

[unclebensrice]

yes Tenpenny,

It does depend on what we ask for...and the department that compiled the purchase order asked specificallly for NDE records as well as MTC. The only problem is that very same department keeps pushing for the the material even though my department has rejected it because all the suppliers deliberately overlook the the NDE reports part and thus I HAVE TO REJECT the material pending those documents....

So what I wanna do is show that other department that, as per SA-XXX , NDE records are not required..they are supplementary...so why the hell do we ask for them if that department doesn't even care about the records..they are just too lazy to remove that part from the PO

 

[SJones]

Mistakes, deliberate or otherwise, get made in both inspection documents and inspection records. So, bring in the inspectors, first party or third party, to witness who also make mistakes. Where does it end?

Steve Jones
Materials & Corrosion Engineer

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

 

[blacksmith37]

I can only sympathize: API com 5 &6 had to rewrite specifications a number of times to define that products (with stencils) MUST confrom to specification ("in every detail") and documentation must be provided. It was amazing how vendors could find/create "loop holes" in the specs.

 

[unclebensrice]

I agree with you Jones and black,

But you can never really tell whether the inaccuracy in the submitted documents was the result of an innocent printing oversight on bhelaf of supplier/manufacturer or something more sinister, like testing that was carried out insufficiently. In this case we had no Third Party Inspector appointed.