Shane,
The committee's are meeting this week as I recall. Don't look for that one to be approved.
As for finding defects on a second run, That will go to all methods. I don't agree with requiring the whole weld to be re examined, but I do agree with not letting something go if it's found.
Regards,
Gerald
shane,
It might be overkill, it might not.
By enforcing my clients specs. the RT techs has been "caught" several times, they simply marked the wrong area.
My company has advised our client only to enforce it on the more critical welds, simply because it was very time consuming to argue about some random drain, cooling water or whatever "non-critical" line was being discussed and then loosing focus on things "that really matters" like steam and feed water.
Getting the contrators to comply is almost always a huge fight, which is bound to be won by the client as it is in writting.
If a UT tech miss a defect on his first examination?
Well, IMO it is the same as when you review RT films, which has been approved by the NDT company interpreter, it is not a matter of who can meassure the best.
If for example a pore is maximum allowed to be 2mm diameter, I dont try to get it to be bigger than that, I have to respect the call of the interpreter.
However, if I several times spot pores to be 3-4mm and he has approved it, I start to question him and maybe have him replaced and/or have all his films reviewed by a NoBo.
The same thing goes for UT interpretation, the client has to respect the call of the guy doing the first examination, unless it is proven that he again and again miss critical defects.
If so, he shold also be replaced and/or all his examinations should be re-examined.
The defect is not allowed to be there, even though the tech missed it.
None of this really relate to your first post, I just try to explain why and when I think it is a good idea to either have it in the code or client spec.
3.2