Inspection Ethics

Date 07-06-2009 19:45

The undercut needs to be addressed, but I don't quite understand the ethics question. Was the pipe guide inspector just wanting to get the other CWI in trouble or was he just concerned because the undercut wasn't addressed? Either way the undercut should be adressed. People are human and they can miss things, even glaring undercut. Personally I would have asked the CWI who signed off on it to take another look at it (possibly make a teaching experience out of it if the guy is a new CWI), before I went over his head.

By 803056

Date 07-06-2009 20:11

I agree with John on this. Assuming the original CWI was still employed by my employer, I would have approached the initial CWI that signed off on the original inspection report to see if the problem was missed/overlooked. It isn't always possible to contact the original CWI due to changes in personnel, etc., in which case the observation of the nonconformance (by the second CWI) should be bought to the attention of management without delay.

Once the original CWI was informed of the discrepancy, one of several outcomes are possible. Only in the event the original CWI refused to revisit the situation or if I wasn't satisfied with the outcome would I have bought it to the attention of management.

There are other scenarios where the CWIs work for different companies. I've been involved with several projects where my services were retained to "reinspect" work that had been checked by other firms to verify their reports were accurate and no major nonconformances were missed. That is a different situation from the one described. In the later case, my reports would go directly to the client and they would take any action they deemed appropriate.

Best regards - Al

By cwi49cwe (*)

Date 08-02-2009 00:34

I also agree with John, but there are unanswered questions, welding inspectors are humanes also and we make mistakes, the big question is was it an honest mistake or negligence, honest mistakes is part of the day to day learning experience, and should be accepted as such. I'm sure there are mitigating circumstances and are understandable, from my own experience at a ship yard 20 years ago, 7 days a week, 12 and 14 hours a day , things will get missed and some one else finds it is no cause for alarm. What's important is the weld fault was found and repaired.

By paul 3

Date 07-06-2009 20:50

The inspector that signed off on the weld, signed off right above the undercut, 1/2" away, later when the repair was made it came to light the the welder informed the cwi that maybe he should fix the undercut and he stated that the cwi said in will be alwright, then signed off. The cwi the brought the matter to the attention to the supervisor said that, safty is his most number one concern when it comes to inspection, and he couldn't inform the cwi who made the call because he wasn't at work that day and the weld was set up to be magged.

By CHGuilford (****)

Date 07-07-2009 13:18

It is always good to give the benefit of the doubt whenever you can. I would assume that was a honest mistake - that even with the welder's comment, the inspector may have had a lot on his mind...or whatever. If possible, I would have told the CWI about it first, but as you said, he wasn't available so the issue needed to be addressed through the supervisor.

We have all had similar things happen despite the best of intentions. So, unless there are some other reasons to question the CWI's abilities and work ethics, I'd chalk it up to a bad day.
I think the best guideline when there are no defined rules is : "Keeping responsibility in mind, how would you want to be treated if in the same situation?"

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 07-06-2009 20:52

Paul3

In my opinion he was not wrong. He could also have told the other CWI and waited to see if he would act on the defect, now that he knew about it.

There are a lot of other questions I would ask, but not knowing all the factors, the answer to the question "as stated" is that it was a proper way to handle the event.

I would also like to point out that it is not a violation of the Code of Ethics "Per Se", to miss a defect.

Joe Kane

By flamin

Date 07-06-2009 23:17

That is what being a team is all about IMO. To get eachothers back and help one another out looking after one another. Without knowing all the facts, it's hard to know what happened (obviously). Speaking from my own experience, I am the only CWI on site where I work, and I have alot of ground to cover. In the busyness of the day, things get crazy, as I'm sure we all know, but yes, occasionly things will be missed, or bad judgement may occur. I would welcome the opportunity to work with another CWI, just for the sake of having a second set of eyes, and perhaps a different point of view. I would look at it as learning experience.

Jason

By trapdoor (**)

Date 07-08-2009 03:39

I agree with Joe that this was not a violation of the Code of Ethics and the situation was handled in an appropriate manner. Not knowing the specifics of the situation it is hard to say more. I think it is always a good idea to not pass judgment on someone for missing something. It can happen to any of us under the right circumstances.

Now if this person has a habit of missing defects then that would be another matter.

By crazycajun (**)

Date 07-20-2009 04:04

I know of this matter. The Inspector called undercut on the welder and the welder buffed the undercut out, but missed a lil bit on the back side of the gate valve. and the Inspector missed it as well. the inspector was taking care of several different jobs at the same time helping out another Inspector by checking on the gate valves as well as the structure that was being done, being the other inspector was stuck on the other side of the yard double jointing pipe and could'nt be in two places at once due to the pace of the double jointing. During the inspectors day of family vacation he was told he was to be removed from the quailty team because he missed alot of undercut, but after the inspector spoke with the welding foreman and the welder and several other people that witnessed the (undercut) it was said to be a very small amount that could have been missed, and it was made to sound like the grand cayon but it could have been fixed by a small amount of buffing. but it was to late by then because the inspector was already terminated from his job, without a chance to even ask about the situation. and the inspector was told a totally different story. So much for team work. sounds to me like it was everyman for him self.

By CHGuilford (****)

Date 07-20-2009 16:48

It's too bad the ethics rules don't address jackasses........but time wounds all heels.

By johnnyh (***)

Date 07-20-2009 17:48

Can you really "buff" out undercut?

By jrw159

Date 07-20-2009 20:13

Ummm... that is my question as well. :-)

By CWI555

Date 07-20-2009 21:40 Edited 07-20-2009 21:56

B31.1 2007 under table/paragraph 127.4.2

(C.3) Undercuts shall not exceed 1⁄32 in. (1.0 mm)
and shall not encroach on the minimum required section
thickness.
(C.4) If the surface of the weld requires grinding
to meet the above criteria, care shall be taken to avoid
reducing the weld or base material below the minimum
required thickness.

For power piping the answer is yet. That answer varies depending on the code in question. Some allow it, some don't.

Regards,
Gerald

Edited for contrasting code
B31.3 2006

328.6 Weld Repair
A weld defect to be repaired shall be removed to
sound metal. Repair welds shall be made using a welding
procedure qualified in accordance with para. 328.2.1,
recognizing that the cavity to be repaired may differ in
contour and dimensions from the original joint. Repair
welds shall be made by welders or welding operators
qualified in accordance with para. 328.2.1. Preheating
and heat treatment shall be as required for the original
welding. See also para. 341.3.3.

341.3.3 Defective Components and Workmanship.
An examined item with one or more defects (imperfections
of a type or magnitude exceeding the acceptance
criteria of this Code) shall be repaired or replaced; and
the new work shall be reexamined by the same methods,
to the same extent, and by the same acceptance criteria
as required for the original work.

For process piping the anwer is No.

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 07-20-2009 21:50

Gerald,

I'm not sure what John and Johnny were thinking, but for myself there was a slight question due to the term "buff". When I think of buffing a part I think of a wire wheel on a grinder to 'clean' the area.

I believe you were referring to either sanding or grinding lightly to remove ridges and/or a small amount of parent metal to lower the difference between the valley at the edge of the weld and the edge of the parent metal thus reducing the undercut. Care being taken to not remove too much material.

Hope I'm not just confusing the issue futher with my attempted clarification.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By CWI555

Date 07-20-2009 21:56

[deleted]

By jrw159

Date 07-21-2009 02:00

I was just wondering if they removed the stress riser or shined it up. As mentioned, "buffing" could be interpreted in differant ways.

jrw159

EDIT: Just read CrazyCajuns response. Stress riser appears to have been eliminated.

By johnnyh (***)

Date 07-20-2009 22:10

Yeah, I always think of buffing as using a wire wheel which would make it hard to remove any metal. I am sure it is just a difference in slang.

By crazycajun (**)

Date 07-21-2009 01:43

Sorry about that. The undercut was called and then grinded to reduce the undercut, then buffed to blend the scar marks made by the grinding blade as show of craftsmanship, No one likes to see grinding marks on a weld. (that's my opinion anyway)

By 803056

Date 07-22-2009 04:06

Maybe I missed something in reading this, but where was the undercut? Was it on the socket hub or the pipe?

Now for the issue raised by several people; if it was on the pipe how much wall thickness was removed by fairing of the undercut? If the undercut exceeded the limits of the applicable code, fairing the UC by grinding and buffing is not the appropriate action.

If it was on the socket hub, it would have little influence of the serviceability of the joint. Still, the code is the code and it needs to be addressed properly.

Best regards - Al

By crazycajun (**)

Date 07-23-2009 02:44

The undercut was on the valve

By 803056

Date 07-23-2009 04:25

If it was on the hub, that would be the least damaging in my opinion. There's no danger of thinning the base metal and little likelyhood of crack initiation, but there are workmanship requirements to be met irrespective of the location.

Best regards - Al