I am having a hard time understanding the validity of NCPWB welder qualification program. I see W. Sperko was involved with the development and approval to some degree, so I must be missing something. How can procedures and welders be qualified by NCPWB and then be used by various members or contractors? This seems to be in direct conflict with ASME IX QW-300.2., QW-103.1, QW-300.3, QW-301.2....where's the missing link?
Various B31 codes have paragraphs that modify the restrictions on the responsibility for supervising qualifications. See 328.2.3 in B31.3 for example.
This would NOT apply to piping welded in accordance with B31.1. Sorry I can't post the paragraph, the B31.3 I bought doesn't let me copy text.
http://www.ncpwb.org/NCPWB_bro.pdfFrom this pdf. it stats that this program meets ASME IX criteria. I'm struggling to see the validity. Given the players involved, there must be something I do not ubderstand. Was hoping someone here was familiar. I had a contractor submit welder quals and procedures for review a while ago for one of their awarded contracts and all the documents were from the NCPWB. I rejected the documents noting they needed to submit supplemental documentation satisfying the criteria from the Articles mentioned in my post. It didn't ruffle any feathers as they then proceeded to submit procedures and qualifications they had performed and used on other projects. I can see this being a big deal from other potential bidders however, and am looking for info verifying compliance.
Thanks for the reference. I did check it out. Still failing to see the relevance to this situation however. 328.2.3. states, "may accept a performance qualification made for another employer...". I don't see how NCPWB or the U.A. could be considered an employer. Keep in mind, I get it that I am the one in err here. Just trying to connect some dots. 328.2.2 does address the procedure issue for SMAW and GTAW for B31.3.
ASME B31.1 - 127.5.3 is very similar to B31.3 - 328.2.3 with references to "employer"...
I believe the NCPWB allows easier "sharing" of WPS's across separate organizations. This allows for easier compliance with the requirements. Contractors join the NCPWB.
Though NCPWB isn't an employer, maybe they just handle the documentation. But they could be a one time employer during qualification.
Have a good day. Hope you find what you are looking for..
Gerald Austin
Greeneville, Tn
"CommonArc" is a gathering of multiple contractors to witness welder performance qualification testing. One welder takes a test for multiple contractors at a time. Participating contractors submit records to the CommonArc organization to maintain continuity.
Both CommonArc and NCPWB are organizations catering to organized labor. Boilermakers and UA Pipefitters.
I appreciate all who have taken the time to offer their opinions on this topic. Thank you. I guess my main issue is the statement, "is in complete compliance with ASME section IX"....which I don't belive it is, not in it's entirety. I did overlook the B31's, which were irrelevant in the last review since it was for a vessle, but more than likely will come up at some point. As far as procedures go for ASME, it's getting to the point where why even bother? Getting tired of reading - Backing, "if required, yes" - Materials, P1 to P1 (as mentioned) - welding process, "any process or combination of processes listed here"...then they submit PQR's for every process know to man. You may as well purchase them if this is your take on controlling your quality. But that's another issue. Thanks eveyone. I am comfortable with my stance on this issue. I'll just voice my concerns to the Engineer when applicable, and have them chase down the welder continuity records if they accept.
The problem with purchased WPSs is the lessons learned when the contractor qualifies their own welding procedures and welders are lost when welding documents are purchased.
The WPSs written to ASME Section IX are often written by individuals that have little connection with the people doing the work. Rarely do they understand the needs of the welder that is charged with using the WPS. A prime example is the listing of the P number of the base metals to be welded using the WPS. How many welders know what base metal specifications are included in the P-1 category or for that matter, P-8? That being the case, many welders look at the WPS, see P-1 listed, and toss it into the corner because it has no meaning to the welder. What does a WPS mean when it lists the filler metal specification as “all SFA5.1” and the electrode classification as “E60XX or E70XX?” What does the "XX" mean? Does that mean the WPS is instructing the welder that it is acceptable to use E7028 in the overhead position? Is the WPS allowing the welder to use an E6010 on base metals that should be welded using a low hydrogen electrode? A response that the welder should know what electrode to use isn’t the right response. The WPS fails its purpose, it fails its mission.
WPSs sold by AWS, and in this case the NCPWB, are often so generic they fail the smell test when handed to the average welder. They simply do not provide the information the welder needs to perform the task assigned. The documentation fails to serve the purpose for which they are intended.
Why do contractors purchase WPSs from third parties? Simple: they do not have the technical expertise to make educated decisions regarding welding.
I don't have any instant solutions to offer. One step to insuring each weld meets the quality requirement is for each contractor to qualify their own procedures and qualify their own welders. In order to qualify welders and procedures properly, people with appropriate knowledge and experience are required. There is no magic wand involved. It is a long hard road, but the school of hard knocks instills knowledge that is long lasting. Failing a qualification test is expensive, but there are lessons to be learned, but not forgotten. The contractor has to ensure the personnel charged with running the welding operations have the appropriate training and experience to conduct the testing that is necessary to ensure the welds made by the employees are code compliant and meets the customer's expectations. The cost of hiring the right personnel and conducting the testing required to meet code requirements is a cost of doing business.
Other industries have similar issues, i.e., finding and retaining the proper personnel to conduct a successful business. Can you just imagine visiting your family doctor only to discover the doctor purchased his doctor's license to practice medicine? Would you be comfortable if you discovered the anesthetist that is putting you under purchased his license and is working from a book of instructions purchased from "Anesthetists Are Us?"
Why do we find it acceptable to hire contractors without appropriate experience or personnel to welding critical components?
If the Owner is given a choice, they should insist on hiring contractors with the proper qualifications and capability to do the work. Before the contract is awarded based on price alone, the contractor's documentation should be reviewed to see if they have the technical expertise to do the work properly and in accordance with the code. Welding documents that are not on the contractor's letterhead and signed by the contractor are good indicators the necessary expertise is lacking.
Best regards - Al
Forum
