RE: [Fwd: Ground flush requirement for piping welds.]

From: <Al>
Date: Sat Oct 30 2004 - 14:16:00 EDT

theres a host of weird things going on out there!
- shouldnt be on PROCESS AND INSTR Diagrams - note the name. Theres a lot
more ought to be specified and it certianly shouldnt be there.

-welding already covers the plural, there is no such word in this
application as "weldings". All welding is "weldings".

• ASME B31.3 or ASME IX says absolutely nothing to suggest that inspection can be waived by the use of TIG (incorrect as chris says) . TO suggest that somehow TIG removes the code requirements for inspection is dangerous nonsense. your newly proposed rewording is still not correct.

-Also ..Just because a weld cant be done in the field doesnt mean it cant be
inspected. IN fact the converse is true as well. Besides whats the criteria for deciding that "it cant be inspected". There are many levels of skill of welder and levels of skill of NDT. The codes rules DO NOT make decisions based on these variables. Clearly the authors do not understand what the code rules do say.

• finally whether you grind flush or not has nothing to do with inspection or the choice of weld. Tig welds still get ground smooth in many thousands of applications. Thats not the point of it. It does nothing to make the situation better.

I agree totally with Chris.

Its a perfect example of someone who doesnt know what they are writing trying to pretend they do and coming up with gibberish.
- at this point , if thats whats it says on the paper your contractor is
right , thats all he has to do.
THe only real saving grace you have at this point is the statement, " B31.3 to be applied ". I dont know about Poland , but the law here forces that to be followed whatever other silly nonsense is written down. To get him to do what he should do is now going to cost a lot more.I am giving you a BIG clue here to your way out, but as chris says. get someone who knows what they are doing.

Maybe saving a few nickels having someone write rubbish on the cheap didnt pay. The perception of the authors is clear. They are both under the mistaken beleif that somehow TIG is a better weld and that is a panacea to problems of access and inspection. Wrong.

Having anybody write down stuff they dont know what theyre doing always has a cost later.

Can you tell us the name of the plant its going into. We would like to avoid it and live longer healthy lives.

• Original Message -------- Subject: Ground flush requirement for piping welds. Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2004 09:53:50 +0200 From: Kulkarni Parag <KulkarniP@plock.tecnimont.net> To: <pbowers@pipingdesign.com> CC: <PipingDesign@yahoogroups.com>

Dear Paul,

I have joined the group recently and this is my first query. Im at Poland site right now for one of our projects. The query is we have a note for certain process lines on the PID and we put the same note on ths isos but in a different manner....

The note we put on iso was: "for internal weldings ASME B31.3 to be applied if welding can be inspected and welds to be ground flush, otherwise is mandatory the use of tig technology"

I think the note should have been:

1. welds to be ground flush (this is the main requirement) and
2. for internal weldings ASME B31.3 to be applied if welding can be inspected otheriswe is mandatory the use of tig technology.

Now the debate at site is if the welds are unaccessible position in case of field welds, then inspection is not possible and if tig technology is alternatively used then ground flush reqt to be waved off. The quality people from the contractoprs side are saying that we will provide tig technology for all welds and that's all.

We have to give a decision.

Please reply .

Regards,
parag

---

PipingOffice - Excel Spreadsheets for Piping Calculations <a href="http://www.pipingoffice.us/">http://www.pipingoffice.us/</a>

---

Main site: <a href="http://www.pipingdesign.com">http://www.pipingdesign.com</a>

Yahoo! Groups Links Received on Sat Oct 30 14:16:00 2004