Maybe I missed my mark, i.e., failed to make my point.
The point I was trying to make is that the employer has a responsibility to train their employees. In this case, how to read and apply the WPS. The WPS must be presented in a way that is useful to the welder, not just a bunch of gobbly gook that only the engineer understands.
I have seen problems when working with contractors using WPSs written to meet ASME Section IX where the WPS only listed the P number(s). Unfortunately, the P number is not one of the pieces of information line stamped on a length of pipe or structural shape. John's point is that listing the material group exclusively on a WPS would provide the welder with little useful information. I agree with John that listing the material specification, which is usually found on a length of material is more useful to the welder. However, the employees must understand the importance of the information provided and how it applies to their work. Providing the necessary training is the responsibility of the employer. Many mistakes and costly rework could be avoided if the employer provides the training necessary to ensure the employees understand what they are doing and the ramifications of acting with incomplete information or without understanding the reasons why things are done a certain way.
The employer should be teaching their employees what a material specification is and it is used to differentiate between different materials. Only then will the WPS make sense. I'm sure you have seen instances where the welder, ands yes, even an engineer has substituted one base metal for another because they did not appreciate the differences between two similar materials meeting two different material specifications. An example of this that I have encountered is the difference between ASTM A53 and ASTM A106. I have seen instances where the A53 was substituted for A106 because they were both steel pipe. The difference between the two can be overlooked if either the welder or the engineer/designer doesn't review and understand the material specifications.
The difference between ASTM A36 and A992 or A588 are additional examples. I have seen contractors fabricate structural members from A36 when the drawings indicated A588 was to be used. The problem was one of not recognizing the difference between the material specifications. The mistakes could have been avoided had the individuals involved been properly schooled.
Unfortunately human nature is what it is. Most of us learn what we need to know to get through the day, do our job, and collect a paycheck. It is back to my 10%-80%-10% rule.
There are more cost effective ways of getting the information to the workers on the production floor other than providing copies of the code(s) to each worker. Even if each worker was given a copy of the code, they would still need to be trained how to use them.
Best regards - Al