Issues regarding the design and supervision inspection of pressure pipelines
Thread Content
Hello everyone, I was once involved in a project where I prepared the drawings for pressure pipelines in accordance with relevant standards. The medium used was liquefied hydrocarbons, and the pipeline materials specified the use of wafer-type butt weld flanges along with high-strength fully threaded bolts. The owner did not invite the design firm to participate in the completion acceptance. Subsequently, the design firm was neither required to stamp the completion acceptance documents nor to visit the site. Later, the owner verbally stated that the project had been successfully completed and accepted; thus, the final payment was made, along with thanks for the cooperation. On one occasion, during a design follow-up visit, I went to the site and noticed that plate butt-weld flanges and single-ended bolts were being used for the pressure pipelines. Upon checking the design documents, I found that the construction contractor had simply stamped the original construction drawings with a “Completion Stamp” (as they had a close personal relationship with the owner). I asked if there would be any problem with that The owner said that the pressure pipeline had been successfully registered for use, and he showed the \"Supervision and Inspection Report on Pressure Pipeline Installation\" issued by the local special equipment inspection institute to explain the situation. The inspection institute determined that there were no issues with the components used in the installation of the pressure pipeline; he even joked that the design team was too conservative, having chosen overly premium flanges. In the future, they would arrange regular inspections by the inspection institute. Looking back now, does it mean that as long as a pipeline passes the supervision inspection, it’s not necessary to follow the design specifications? Can the Special Inspection Agency’s \"Supervision and Inspection Report\" really solve everything? It seems that many users of special equipment currently have no capability to conduct routine inspections and maintenance on such equipment; their safety status entirely depends on the “Supervision and Inspection Reports” or “Periodic Inspection Reports” issued by the Special Equipment Inspection Institute. What do all you experts think?
If nothing goes wrong, everything’s fine; but if there’s a problem, none of them will be able to escape:D
Any changes to the design must be approved in writing by the original design unit
Should this matter be handled as follows: issuing a follow-up document and stipulating that any outstanding issues must be addressed in accordance with the original design; otherwise, any problems arising therefrom shall be unrelated to the design unit? Then, the owner must sign it. Then report to your supervisor, archive the documents, and your task of conducting the visit will be completed. As for what happens in the future, that’s someone else’s business. This signature might cause trouble in the future. For reference.
It’s likely that the owner will find it difficult to sign for you. . . .
It’s okay not to sign; just send a hazard notification and keep it on file. It is also possible to inform the higher-level safety supervision department; in the end, one can simply wash oneself clean of any responsibility before an accident occurs.
But I think the XX Branch of the XX Province Special Equipment Inspection and Research Institute, along with the “supervisory inspection” services it provides, has quite a high status; it seems to be very impressive. . . . . .
I’ve encountered the same question as the original poster
Right now, the project owner, the construction contractor, the supervision unit, and the inspection unit are not in an awkward situation; only the design unit is in an awkward position. . . . . . . .