Loss of welder qualification ?

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 03-01-2003 22:03

I'm not aware of the part where the welders qualifcation status changes due to B31.1. He doesn't have any restrictions as far as the ability to make welds as far as I can see in the code. That would be something controlled by the fabricator/erector.

Now as far as the lines in service go, if unsatisfactory welds are located, progressive sampling is to be done as listed in para "341.3.4 Progressive Sampling for Examination". This is required for compliance to the code but does not change the qualification status or the ability to weld of the welder as far as I can see. It DOES mean that some requirements of the code were NOT met.

If there is something in B31.3 that indicates the welder is no longer allowed to weld, let me know. I am aware of the allowance for pulling the certification of welders based on the inspectors opinion of the welders ability to make satisfactory welds until he/she retests.

Good day

Gerald Austin
http://weldinginspectionsvcs.com

By insp76

Date 03-01-2003 23:59

Pipe Welder,Thanks for the reply,what never ceases to amaze me is the fact that there are so many GREY AREAS in the code books and so many different opinions on the answers.Many of these questions need to be answered,but who`s going to answer them? Decisions I make on a daily basis are very inportant and can cost the company alot of money. If anyone has a definative answer to these questions ,let me and everyone else know.Thanks again

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 03-02-2003 01:07

I think its pretty definitive. There is NO requirement to stop welding of a welder that has had an rejected weld in B31.3.

The purpose of the follow up radiography would to be sure that there is no problem with the other welds the welder has made. The follow up RT is required by code. However it has nothing to do with whether a welder can weld or not.

Please, let me know what paragraphs indicate this "Grey Area". I am not aware of them but that means little and I bcould offer a more definitive "Opinion" if I knew where this information came from.

G Austin

By insp76

Date 03-02-2003 03:26

Well pipe welder ,I hope your right or I should say we because that is what I beleive and it`s the way I`ve been handleing it. It`s just that I have heard different interpretation on the subject in the past and here now recently. I just wanted to know if there was anyone visiting this site that may have a different opinion of it than I do. I`ll brake out the code book monday when I get back to work and get back to you.

By MBSims

Date 03-02-2003 04:40

insp76,

Codes are not intended to be a cookbook on how weld, install and inspect piping systems, so they will never be as "black and white" as we would like them to be. They provide a set of minimum requirements that must be combined with sound engineering practice, experience and professional ethics to accomplish the task.

The only requirements in B31 and ASME IX that I am aware of regarding suspending a welder's certification is "when there is reason to question the welder's ability to produce sound welds." You're going to need to make a judgement on whether the extent of defects that caused the weld to fail RT indicates a problem with the welder's skills, or could have been caused by something beyond his control, such as a difficult weld location, restricted access, poor joint fit-up, etc. The welder's previous history of RT reject rates should also be considered. Even the best welders can have problems passing RT 100% of the time. I don't see a need to question the welder's ability to make socket welds based on a RT reject, unless the welder is having trouble meeting the visual and surface examination acceptance criteria on socket welds.

I'm not familiar enough with B31.3 to know when RT is required or if it permits random RT. I got the impression from your 1st post that there may be a random RT provision. If so, you may want to request the previous groove welds be examined by RT if the weld that failed RT indicated a major skill problem or was so extensive as to raise a concern about integrity of the welds in service. This would need to be discussed with the engineering and quality control managers to reach a mutual agreement on whether to defer the exam to the next shutdown or come offline.

Marty

By insp76

Date 03-02-2003 14:06

Thanks for the reply Marty,In B31.3 there is a mandatory 5% random rt requirement to reflect the workmanship of all welders and it is suggested to shoot one in twenty welds on each welder. There is also a requirement to shoot two for one on rt repairs. Thanks for reinforcing what I have believed all along, the code books are a guide line but must be strictly obeyed when contracts to perform to the code are established.Good judgment , common sence and following client specs are also a big factor. Have a good day.

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 03-02-2003 12:41

It is possible that there is some contract requirement or quality system requirement that states this requirement.

And again I may have overlooked it. As Marty said, regardless of what the code says about the radiography, if there is reason to question the ability of the welder to make acceptable welds, there are provisions to stop that welder from welding until that is addressed. This is not referred to, required by or restricted by 341.34. of B31.3.

There is a gap between what the CODE says, What is practical/Suggested, What is "Fit for Service" etc. A code requirement is a code requirement. A contract requirement is covered by the contract and may include or add to the code requirements. The responsibility for this is somewhat addressed below

340.2 Responsibility for Inspection
It is the owner’s responsibility, exercised through
the owner’s Inspector, to verify that all required exami-
nations and testing have been completed and to inspect
the piping to the extent necessary to be satisfied that
it conforms to all applicable examination requirements
of the Code and of the engineering design.

The above information is from B31.3 2002 No Addenda

Good Day

G Austin

By Seldom

Date 03-02-2003 20:07

B31.3 chapters V & VI, “gray areas”? I don’t think so and see no need to “interpret” anything in those chapters. It’s been my experience that many more so called “supplements” to engineering specifications lead to confusion then most ASME code sections. In addition, many inspection-type individuals I’ve managed, read too deeply into a code’s wording. It’s as if they can’t believe the code is so commonsensical and they continually search for something they’re missing or that the code wants them to interpret. Time and time again I’ve seen this bring capital and maintenance jobs to a halt resulting in misunderstandings and mistrust, all the while, the operating plant is sitting on their hands watching $ signs going down the drain with each tick of the clocks as the job is held up needlessly.

The “real” problem is that the system/lot containing that particular welders work is out of compliance according to the specifications because “progressive examination” was not initiated and allowed to run it’s course. The question shouldn’t be what to do or not do with the welder; it should be how did this scenario get out of control? The allowance of the job getting out of control now requires a risk assessment by the plant, engineering, and QC as to the degree the welds that are in service jeopardize the dependability of the plant.
This scenario could have happened a couple of ways. One way is that the radiographer didn’t read their film until after the start-up or deliver the film and report to the QC until after start-up. The second way, and one with the highest probability, that there wasn’t a QC present at the site when the radiographer read the film. If there was, the QC could/would have immediately responded and initiated the progressive examination procedure with minimal hold up time evoked on the operation plant! Nobody else can do this, not the radiographer, not the plant personnel, only the QC knows where that particular welder’s welds are located and which ones should have examined.
When the job’s done, it’s done and the operating plant takes over, until that time, it’s on the QC’s shoulders to “ensure” that all requirements of the specifications have been met.

Your question- “does he also loose the right to make socket welds until I can get 2 clean tracers on him.” With all due respects, the horse is out of the barn! I think you’re missing the point and reasoning of progressive examination. Why shoot 2 tracers on other work, why not just test him? Either way it’s not going to solve or rectify the real problem of the “out of compliance” of the process piping he worked on.

By insp76

Date 03-03-2003 01:07

Seldom, I must say that was a great assesment of the situation.The situation I`m usually in is that we bring down and isolate only one line at a time, one maybe two welds are made , flange replacement,ninety washes out ,things like that ,progressive examination is not a option I have when we make only one weld. What I do is shoot the next two butt welds that welder makes. If we are in a turn around with several weld to choose from on the welder there is no problem. I have taken welders off to the side and tested them but that was only because they were on there way out and I was giving them one last chance. The only reason I asked about making socket welds untill I can get two good tracers is because a "company" inspector stated that in his opinion a welder looses his qualification untill the two tracers are shot.I am an inspector representing the contractor performing the welding in the plant.Since hearing this I have not changed a thing I have been doing.And if he challenges me about it I guess I`ll just tell him to jump in the lake to put it mildly.The only problem I see with the code books is that they are more oriented to new construction than to maint. and repair work.

By Seldom

Date 03-03-2003 13:01

Hi Insp76,
I’d tell the QA to “jump in the lake” as well! Especially if you as the QC, can show evidence of the welder in question’s recent radiographic activity.

Many times, QA’s and QC’s alike, forget there are a multitude of reasons why a weld fails to meet minimum requirements other then just the welder’s ability to perform. Even functioning as a QA, I’ve traced isolated quality problems of welders with very consistent work history’s back to such things as substandard filler material from new batches, using different welding machines (electric-gas driven), goveners failing on gas welding machines, etc, right down to finding the welder hadn’t had his eyes examined in 10 years and needed bifocals! If the welder has a “track record” with the QC, more often then not, it’s something other then his ability to meet the minimum acceptance criteria. Half of the reason for evoking progressive examination is to expose a specific cause. Usually, in order to do this any change or deviation from the specific conditions of what, when, & where at the time when the welder was welding invalidates that part of the process.

You stated- “The only problem I see with the code books is that they are more oriented to new construction than to maint. and repair work.”
Even in one of my old API 570’s it’s stated that the “principles” of the B31.3 shall be
followed. Seldom is this a problem doing this, except when somebody wants to take the “easy way out” of an uncomfortable situation. lol