I agree that the "owner" referred to by ASME Section IX is the ownership of the manufacturer, erector, etc. responsible for the welding of the product/component, system, etc. It is not referring to the ownership of the plant, i.e., chemical plant, powerhouse, etc.
The Owner of the facility doesn't take possession of the facilities until it is completed, paid for, and ownership is transferred from the contractor to the new owners.
The manufacturer or erector responsibility is to qualify the procedures and the welders. They typically do not have to be qualified for the specific project unless it is part of the project specifications. These points have been made by Shane and JS55 already. As an example of where the welding procedures do have to be qualified on a project by project basis, I would point out that many states require the welding procedures (to be) used on each bridge structure be qualified for that specific structure. I've been involved with customers (fabricators) building two bridges for the same state qualifying the separate welding procedures simultaneously (even though they were exactly the same WPSs). Those requirements are clearly stipulated in the project specification and all parties involved understand the requirements and the costs involved.
The costs involved with qualifying the welding procedures used on a complex machine such as a powerhouse is no small undertaking. There are numerous base metals involved and the time and effort required is considerable. It is no small undertaking to qualify welding procedures involving high strength alloys and various combinations of ferrous and nonferrous base metals.
I am currently working with a customer that is qualifying a procedure involving dissimilar metals; a quenched and tempered high strength low alloy steel to a nickel copper alloy. The cost of the material alone is on the order of $2000 and the time to weld each sample is on the order of four days. Add in the cost of labor, machining, and testing, the final cost will approach several thousand dollars by the time all is said and done. There is no guarantee the sample will pass all the required tests.
Based on the information provided, it is clear that the customer's representative has misinterpreted the intent of ASME Section IX. I can understand where the intent of the code can be misinterpreted by someone unfamiliar with reading our form of the English language. We argue over the intent of the code language here in the forum on a daily basis. That being said, it would serve both parties well to review the project specifications to review the requirements related to welding documentation. It would be reasonable for the customer to pay for the cost of requalifying the WPSs if the requirement is not clearly stated in the project specifications. If the requirement is included in the specification, then the manufacturer/erector should comply with the requirement without incurring additional cost to the customer.
Best regards - Al
Thanks Al, you are very patient to write so much. This requirement is not stated in the project specifications and the contract between us and owner.
The owner also require us to adopt induction heating to preheat and PWHT P91 pipe. We have never used this type heating machine. I know miller produce a new type induction heating machine proheat 35. I want to know its price in USA.
best regards
dragon
In general, I agree with comments in this thread. Most mistake the utilization of ASME Section IX, in that it is a Specification for the qualification of welding/brazing procedures and welders/welding operators/brazers only. It is not a fabrication Specification. Details of the requirements for qualification of new welding procedures, or the use of previously qualified welding procedures are matters usually identified in the Contract Documentation.
In select situations, the welding Specification being used MAY influence the above. A good example would be welding fabrication/construction being accomplished in accordance with API 1104. In Appendix A, Para. A.3.1.b, there is a requirement that procedure requalification is required where there is "a change in the grade or manufacture of the pipe material...". This can require new procedures be qualified, from Project to Project, unless the same base material manufacturer can be secured. This is rare.
In the Offshore Oil & Gas Industry it is common for the Client Specifications to require welding procedure qualifications be accomplished on "Project Materials". This should be understood in the bidding stage of the Project and would be included in the submitted price to the Client.
I do disagree with one comment above, and that is regarding "The Owner of the facility doesn't take posssession of the facility until it is completed, paid for, and ownership is transferred from the contractor to the new owners". It would be quite rare to see an example where the contractor "owned" the facility that they are building, at any time during construction.
By 803056 
Date 05-21-2009 18:10
Edited 05-21-2009 19:15
I understand your point, but most "owners" don't take possession of the "work" until it has been completed for legal reasons. There is usually contract language that indemnifies the "owner" until they take "ownership". Without such language, the "owner" would be responsible for anything and everything that happens on the site during construction. Imagine the liability that would incur for the "owner".
I was an expert witness in just such a case and that was the language the "owner" based their defence. They were not liable for the accident that happened because they were indemnified until they took "ownership/possession" from the general contractor which was when the project was completed, inspected, and accepted.
The definitions of "ownership" and "possession" as used in the contract are the pivotal points. Contract language can be complex to say the least and every project is different from the last job. I guess the point is, if there is a point to be made, read the fine print.
Best regards - Al
