I second all of these thoughts... I guess if you are
in a posistion where you have to make inquiries on an
internet forum like this about re-rating you should
not be involved woth it because your knowledge is
questionaable at the very least.
Re-rating is not easily done and is quite rigorous in all of its details.
> [Sent from someone who wants to remain anonymous.
> -PB]
>
> paul,
> I dont know if this should be posted, its pretty
> strong. If you decide to I
> would only ask you post it anonymously.
> --------------------------------------------
> Chris, Once again you are absolutely correct in the
> significant broader
> perspective of things.
>
> You have expounded further very clearly on why in my
> opinion (as I stated)
> re-rating practice in many instances
> (generally without the necessary requisite
> committments)
> is that it is not worth it anymore from a third
> party standpoint... even as
> an "employee" (not third party) doing the sign off
> under someone elses umbrella.
> The expectaton is always clear , but the committment
> is absent.
>
> I agree your remarks are profound. What you are
> signing off on, and
> accepting responsibility for is that
> the changes fully comply (in every respect) with the
> intent and requirements
> of the Code in full.
>
> The code (piping and vessel) does allow "other
> methods" of design if you
> can demonstrate and have them accepted as
> equivalent or better. This is actually a tall order.
> But it is common
> practice to rework something , rehydro it and
> operate it higher or lower or
> different in some way... whatever your definition of
> "re-rated" is.
>
> The first time i encountered this was in rescuing a
> costly pipeline and by
> fracture mechanics and FEA ,to show it was still
> serviceable. Very risky exercise fraught with many
> dangers, not well
> understood by the participants, including myself
> (fully) at the time.. But it is still operating.
> Many millions and much hardware and resources have
> been saved and re-used by
> many peoples efforts. I'm sure everybody knows of
> such cases, but that
> doesnt make it run of the mill and the widespread
> trivialization of the
> practice is disturbing.
>
> In these situations all my (and your) comments about
> risk and knowledge of
> what you are doing apply in full.
> What is scary is the participants (and perpetrators)
> do NOT "seem" to
> understand what this means. Many statements I have
> heard are just horrific.
>
> I am very glad this is being discussed and your
> wisdom is out there because
> it seems nobody (precious few) understand these
> issues. Am i overstating
> this. NO.
> I have the transcript and recently sat with a group
> of experts in a Civil
> Trial from a big failure listening to an ENGINEER
> PhD from a prestigious
> university tell the judge the Codes were
> "irrelevant", & "guidelines" and
> could be over-ruled by him and vicariously therefore
> by the others involved
> (essentially at will). He cited his opinions as
> acceptable practice (without
> his involvement in the project, knowledge or
> responsilibity) directly in
> contradiction to the clear statements of the code
> rules. When such
> perspectives are out there unchecked we are all in
> trouble.
> When the court awards two $50k education funds for
> the deaths of workers in
> a negligent refinery disaster we are all in trouble.
> When a Sour gas
> facility is approved for a
> dense residential area with no identifiable plan or
> mitigation we are all in
> trouble.
>
> As codes go less prescriptive this will get worse.
> The Longhorn Disaster
> book describes similar as does much other
> literature. These days we dont see
> most reports/postmortems because of gag orders. We
> used to see far more
> postmortems and they are enormously valuable
> learning exercises. This itself
> is a
> tragedy.
>
> The worst is when owners and "players" make changes
> or alterations
> and want you to stamp and anoint them with "holy
> water" (and more) "after
> the fact".
>
> Worse they wont co-operate in helping mitigate the
> risk in undertaking such
> an exercise. Bottom dollar is not the way to do
> this, but it is what is
> expected.
>
> They resent the effort and questions and wont
> co-operate in trying to gather
> the answers you need to make the assessment.
> You know the code words and turns of phrase.
>
> These situations are occuring more and more often,
> in fact now increasingly
> we are asked to stamp and signoff with
> NO work done (or precious little) and NO
> information. I could cite many
> examples.
>
> If I sound frustrated, I think its clear why.....
> The overtures are always
> that the hurricane will only come on the other/next
> guys shift.
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Christopher Wright" <chrisw@skypoint.com>
> Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 10:04 PM
> Subject: Re-rating - pressure test thoughts
>
>
>
> >>
> >> On Sep 9, 2005, at 11:57 AM, aluser2 wrote:
> >>
> >
> >>> > chris, it is legit under the code.
> >
> >> I don't think so, but if you can cite me chapter
> and verse, I'll
> >> consider it.
> >>
> >> First, the Code doesn't 'rate' anything. The
> pressure vessel codes are
> >> a set of rules to be followed in the
> construction of pressure vessels.
> >> If the AI finds that all the applicable rules
> are followed for the
> >> construction and service conditions, the vessel
> may be stamped with the
> >> ASME cloverleaf for a specific MAWP. The Code
> plate isn't a 'rating;'
> >> it simply indicates that the vessel construction
> accords with Code
> >> rules. Once the stamp is applied, construction
> ends and that's the end
> >> of the Code's purview. There is no 'rating,'
> just a statement of
> >> compliance. This is covered in the Foreword to
> Section VIII, and I
> >> suspect you'll find similar language in the
> piping codes. You can't
> >> convert a non-Code vessel into a Code vessel
> just by doing numbers or
> >> with a hydro-test, and you can't make a Code
> vessel stamped with a MAWP
> >> of 250 psi into a Code vessel stamped with a
> MAWP of 275 psi--once the
> >> stamp is applied the Code has no more to say.
> >>
> >> Moreover, the code can't 'rate' a vessel because
> it makes no statement
> >> of suitability for a given service. The owner
> takes that responsibility
> >> when he installs the vessel. That's covered in
> the Foreword, too.
> >>
> >> After installation, modifications are governed
> by the jurisdictional
> >> rules. If the jurisdiction is loose, the owner
> or his agent might
> >> 're-rate' or fiddle to his heart's content, up
> to the point where
> >> injury or property damage occurs and the
> insurors or the courts take
> >> over. But the ASME Code has nothing to do with
> it, because it only
> >> governs new construction. The National Board
> Inspection Code part RA
> >> may apply to modifications or repairs, again
> depending
=== message truncated ===
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 04 2008 - 11:40:44 EST