Al,
That is a good story and one I think most of us can agree with. Stick to it. You have hit the nail on the head, IMHO. ours is not a "Untouchable God" position, but rather a "Middle Man" position that we have proved ourselves competent enough to fill, even if we can not spell very well.
John
Someones tag line (can't remember who's) applies to this one. Apparently even the word interpret needs interpreted.
On the most anal retentive level, no one but the code comittee makes an "interpretation".
However; most codes are written clear as mud. Sometimes I have run across several incidences of assumptions in various codes. For an example: one code stated "final acceptance of a radiographed shall be based on the ability to dicern the required Image qaulity indicator ". Thats all well and good, but that statement was taken to mean that if the density was 1.4 HD it was good. After all the code said "final acceptance shall be based on" without a qualification statement for density requirements. I was instructed to eval the situation and therefore, purchased a contrast sensitivity gauge, plaque IQI's etc. While I could see the wire, I could not see the required hole, nor the required for the contrast sensitivity gauge.
Therefore, it is my opinion the relevant code committee, (whom I spoke with as well) had made an assumption in regards to the required density. It was assumed 1.8 to 4.0 for x ray, 2.0 to 4.0 for source, 1.3 and 1.3 min for composite shots etc.
(reference ASME section V most recent edition article II)
Later editions of the same code clarified this, but for that point in time an "interpretation" had to be made. Waiting months for the committee to meet was simply not an option.
I have noted several such "assumed" thoughts in the codes. The codes are written by professionals in the business, and very often what is normal par the course for them, is not for others.
I do not get into mind reading. Trying to read the minds of people 3000 miles away or more is a piss pour technique for addressing the issues at hand.
Therefore, in 98 percent of situations, the inspector should not give opinion but simply quote code.
for that 2% of time in which the code comittees have left all on the project out to dry by their assumptions, the CWI/inspector should have enough knowledge to give some direction and suggestions as to how to go about resolving the "assumption", but leave to engineering/owner the final resolution. In the situation I described, the owner opted to allow the shot for economic and schedule reasons. I performed due diligence, but in the final analysis, they owned it, they can sign for it.
Thats my interpretation of the word and or action of interpretation being performed by a CWI.
thats the world as I see it.
Regards,
Gerald