Superflux,
It seems that if QC is going to invoke an 'Industry Standard' then it is incumbant upon them to make a copy of it available to show you wherein it is written you cannot do whatever it is they do not want you to do. The absence of this standard is indefensible.
Now, on friday this won't help. But the thing to do is get the heads together ahead of time, like now, and make clear that this ain't gonna get it done.
Wasn't there another thread talking about the problem of self appointed QC Gods?
Superflux,
"Industry Standard" is an interesting topic. There are many things that are refered to as "Industry Standard". IMHO The code and specifications that one is working to is the"Industry Standard". This is a continually "evolving" industry, and what was at one time"standard" may no longer be acceptable. Such as marking on SS pipe and fittings with low chloride products, or riding the ball of a crane. It used to be "industry standard" to "ride the ball", as well as to mark SS items with any marker and seal the open ends with anty tape. However due to many new advances and realizations, both are no longer industry standards.
This is why IMHO, the "industry standard" is the code, specifications and quality manual, and in the area of safety, the company safety policy and OSHA regulations.
Now this can easily be blown away by an inspector or safety representative that imposes his/her own set of values.
I think the way that I would handle this on a Friday afternoon, would be to present to whomever it may be, the documents that I first request on any job, code and spec. and inform them that this is the "standard". then if the "standard" is not met, NCR.
I have in the past run into this issue of "industry standard" and in almost every case it was a weak attempt by someone who did not want to conform to the ever evolving quality and safety standards of our industry.
I had a production foreman foaming at the mouth one time in a refinery over him having to purchase low chloride markers and tape for SS products, even after showing him the documents stateing this. It was so bad he may still be losing sleep over it. LOL
So in short, "industry standards" evolve right along with everything else. What was acceptable back in the good ole days, may or may not be acceptable today.
IMHO,
John
js55, and jrw159,
Thank you gentlemen for your responses. Not wanting to be a"QCGOD" is precisely why I posted this inquiry, and am preparing myself. For some reason, I have this premonition that in the near future, I'm going to be faced with this or some similar ethics based, non-referencable, "we got you now" confrontation.
Sometimes you arrive on a project where the third party Inspector is viewed as the "enemy" and the battle has begun B4 you even get out of the truck, and I simply wish to be rational and professional 99.9% (no one's perfect) of the time.
BTW what brands/types of (non or) chloride based markers should be avoided/used on SS? I was under the impression as long as the product was away from the weld area, that SS was impervious to "common chemicals".
Getting some people to foam at the mouth is one of the perks of the JOB!
I know that's cruel, but true, even tho I shouldn't admit it.
Appreciate the food for thought.
john
Superflux,
I first came across this in refinery work. Low chloride markers and tape are used. There is still a percentage of chloride, and I do not recall exactly, nor do I have the documentation on hand, to tell you what that percentage is. As far as what brand, I think this is up to the user, so long as it is below the required percentage.
I am really not too familiar with the whys and what fors, as my refinery experiance with SS is limited, and I was also under the same impression that SS was impervious to "common chemicals".
From what i remember, the high chloride content in most paint markers and tape will cause issues later down the line.
So this was truly a case of me just doing as I was instructed by requirements.
Maybe Dbigkahunna will see this and fill us in, as I am sure he knows more about the subject.
BTW I know first hand all too well what you mean about the battle already having begun before you get out of the truck. I learned quickly not to let it get to me, I sleep very well at night. Even if they do not.
John
Superflux,
I posted the question here in this section, so lets sit back and see what we get for an answer.
I am positive there are many here in this forum that will be able to educate us on the whys and what fors.
John
The possibility of Chloride Stress Corrosion Cracking. CSCC. Austenitic SS's are especially susceptible.
Js55,
I was thinking it would result in cracking, but was unsure and did not want to state something incorrect.
Thank you,
John
An industry standard would be a standard published by a recognized organization such as AWS, NFPA, NACE, etc. that is not a code in that may not have legal standing on its own accord, but it may (have legal standing) when referenced by a code with legal standing. Recommended practices can also be recognized as industry standards, as an example; SNT-TC-1A is a recommended practice that is recognized the around the globe and in some cases has become a legal requirement because it is referenced by codes such as ASME B&PV Code and AWS D1.1 to name a few.
FC2002, while it has received wide recognition, would not be recognized as an industry standard because the standing committee has not been recognized by any professional organization nor has FC2002 been referenced by any existing code. I'm sure that will come in time when industry recognizes it's value and cost savings to them. At that time we will be able to charge gobs of money for it, revise it every two years and sell new editions every two years and we can all buy houses in Boca Raton and idle away the hours and drink pink lemonade with the social elite. :)
Best regards - Al ;)
Al,
Thank you for the explanation.
Can I come visit you on the beach in Boca Raton after the gobs of money start rolling in? Idleing away the hours drinking Grey Goose and pink lemonaid sounds great!
Oh wait, I added the Grey Goose, sorry. :-)
John
I've encountered the "industry standard" clause in a few specs over the years and I think it is a catch all for the engineer when he/she does not want to address every little detail. That's not a criticism just an opinion. Examples are: pipes are to be run parallel and perpendicular to building walls when possible,(looks terrible when plumbers and pipe fitters run swing joints everywhere to save on a fitting or two), pipes are to be level and plumb (unless slope is required), two holing flanges, pipes are to be beveled and a gap between the two pipes before welding (so you do not butt the two pipes and seal weld them). They should adhere to the WPS but some companies that I've seen on jobs don't know what a WPS is. I have seen pipes butted up and welded with no root opening and the pipe ends square cut with a band saw.
I've seen specs with this verb-age or similar examples. Craftsmen shouldn't have to be told these things but the words "industry standard" is a way for the engineer to reject poor practices on his/her job. I do not think an inspector or QC personnel will be able to legitimately reject some of the examples mentioned per a code. An engineer will have more latitude in this area and can stop payment to a contractor that doesn't comply.
That is the way it works on many of the jobs I work on now. I am not suggesting that is the way it is in every industry.
Tim (swsweld),
I often have difficulty trying to convey the questions and answers that bounce around (in that vast emptyness of my skull) to others. It seems you have interpreted the intent of my question and given the answer I was looking for with examples I could relate to, ie 2 holing flgs, swing joints, etc...
On large scale industrial jobs like power plants and refineries, the ISO's and ORTHO's supported by usually the ASME Code seem to be well defined and straight foreward. It is on the smaller commercial, hospitals, schools, office buildings etc that I've seen the Industry Standard clause come to play in the specs. These projects are often run by the "mom and pop" mechanical contractors, who on occaision will attempt extreme liberties with catch-all's like the industry standard we have been disussing.
I too have witnessed such scenarios. "I have seen pipes butted up and welded with no root opening and the pipe ends square cut with a band saw." When I was a sub contractor/rig welder.... These sleasy foremen were taking advantage of novice welders fresh out of vo-tech and laughing all the way to the bank with their share of the ill-gotten profits. Now days I am more apt to be a QC on such projects instead of a sub and will have to face such issues head on.
Thank you for your insightful answer and the advice of how to deal with this issue.
John
Your welcome Superflux.
As you stated it was never an issue at the nuclear plants and fossil fuel plants, etc. but I had a rude awakening when I got off the road and started a business doing pipe and steel jobs in the same commercial jobs you mentioned. Most of my career was nuclear and boilers and when I saw the quality of work being done in the "real world" is was disturbing. Unqualified welders making 100% bad welds on some of the projects I work on. Were doing RT on our UG Med temp pipe and I'm afraid to walk up some of the stairs. They must be wedged in there because the welds aren't holding them up. I've seen threaded rod and rebar used to fill gaps on pipe and moments.
I have been on several jobs to finish the welding or repair the welds because the contractor was run off or told not to weld. (still could bolt up). I've seen companies go out of business because the pipe welds were so ugly the engineer(mech pipe rarely gets inspected. It is usually the engineer that does a monthly walk through that catches the deficiencies) requested the welds to be RT'd. Of course they all failed. All of the specs on these jobs state that the owner reserves the right to RT any weld and any weld that fails shall be repaired at no cost to the owner. Another clause to keep the contractor honest.
I think the owner deserves to get what they pay for, not more unless you want to but certainly not less.
I have made money because of these contractors that will not or cannot perform "industry standards"
The bigger problem is that I have to bid against these companies that cut corners and do faster, poorer work with unqualified welders and often illegal workers. Hard to get work and make money sometimes when the low bidder has never seen a rod oven.
There are still many companies that do quality work in these fields. Most of these jobs only get an inspector when one is called to the site so some companies take advantage of that. And how much can one CWI inspect in a hour or two. More of these jobs are requiring a dedicated inspector on site instead of the casual visits. Only if it is specified by the owner. It is all about the money or lack thereof.
Didn't mean to turn this into a rant. I'm thankful that there is a lot of work around here. That encourages many people to start up a business and that's not a bad thing. Were building schools and prisons mostly. Wish it were pipelines and oil patches.
Al,
Thanks for this response. As I see it, from a CWI QC Professional point of view, I will never use the "industry standard" in any of my arguments. If confronted by the I/S excuse, I will simply use my standard response of "you show me in the code/specs where this is allowed"...... as I slowly, deliberately pull the NCR form from it's folder.....
John
Yeah,
Like in the old west movies, when the gunslinger twitches his fingers over the Colt Peacemaker before "clearin' leather".....
Thats too funny, stop it.
John
Forum
