Conflicting Acceptance Criteria Between Drawing and Client Specification
A pressure piping spool is being inspected to a client specification that references a national code for acceptance. The fabrication drawing note states 'all welds 100% radiographed, acceptance per code.' The client specification adds a clause requiring 'no incomplete penetration permitted in root passes.' The welder produced a root with slight incomplete penetration (about 1.5 mm) on two of eight girth welds. Radiography shows the indication is rounded and within the code's general acceptance limit, but it violates the client's specific clause. The client's inspector is on site and has already signed the RT reports as 'acceptable per code.' The coordinator is asked to sign the final inspection release.
1. Which acceptance criterion governs, and how should the coordinator resolve the conflict?
Read the worked answer
The client specification governs, because it is the contract document and it adds a requirement beyond the referenced code. The code sets a baseline; the specification can tighten it. The drawing note 'acceptance per code' does not override the specification's specific clause, and a general note is subordinate to a specific contractual requirement.
The coordinator should not sign the release on the basis of the inspector's 'acceptable per code' signature, because that signature addressed the code limit and did not address the specification clause. The conflict is real and must be resolved in writing.
The resolution path:
- Document the two criteria side by side: the code limit (which the 1.5 mm rounded indication meets) and the specification clause (which prohibits incomplete penetration in root passes regardless of size).
- Notify the client inspector and the client engineer that the RT reports were signed against the code only, and that the specification clause changes the disposition.
- Request a written clarification or waiver from the client. If the client waives the clause for these two welds, the coordinator can release with the waiver attached. If the client does not waive it, the welds are nonconforming.
The coordinator's signature certifies compliance with the governing requirements, so signing without resolving the conflict would misrepresent the inspection result.
2. If the client does not waive the clause, what are the repair options and their consequences?
Read the worked answer
If the clause stands, the two welds with incomplete penetration are nonconforming and must be brought into compliance. The coordinator should present options with their consequences.
Option 1: Excavate and repair the root. Grind out the incomplete penetration from the root side if accessible, verify removal by PT, and re-weld to the WPS, then re-radiograph. This is the cleanest compliance path but requires root access, which may mean cutting and re-fitting the spool. Consequence: schedule and cost impact, plus a new weld that must meet the same clause.
Option 2: Cut out and replace the weld. If root access is not possible, the joint may need to be cut and re-welded. This is the most disruptive and should be a last resort.
Option 3: Request a fitness-for-service or deviation with client approval. If the client will accept a documented deviation, the coordinator can release with the deviation. But this is the client's decision, not the coordinator's, and the deviation must be in writing.
The coordinator should also investigate why the root pass had incomplete penetration: root gap, land, current, travel speed, or fit-up. If the cause is a WPS or fit-up issue, other welds may be affected, and the coordinator should review the remaining six welds for the same condition even though they passed RT. Corrective action should address the root cause so the repair does not repeat the defect.