B31.3 04 (most contracts are still on 2004)
Def.
examination, examiner: see paras. 341.1 and 341.2
inspection, Inspector: see para. 340
340.1 General
This Code distinguishes between examination (see
para. 341) and inspection. Inspection applies to functions
performed for the owner by the owner's Inspector or
the Inspector's delegates. References in this Code to the
"Inspector" are to the owner's Inspector or the Inspector's
delegates
341 EXAMINATION
341.1 General
Examination applies to quality control functions performed
by the manufacturer (for components only), fabricator,
or erector. Reference in this Code to an examiner
is to a person who performs quality control examinations.
___________________________________________________
That is the only thing stated in regards to examinations such as PT. There has been a long standing argument in regards to the final examination being performed by the welder both visual and and other. There is some information given in this regards when viewed in light of the demarcation given between inspector and examiner. Most quality programs
don't allow the welder to make the quality call, but there is nothing specific that prevents that action except for qualification of that examiner/welder.
Therein is the real issue at hand. In my experience with 31.3, the first sentence of para 342.1 usually is what is quoted. However; not many realize that if that welder is to be performing quality examinations as well, He or she is required to be certified and have the training that any PT technician would be required to have per CP189 or TC1A. (also applies to visual and MT)
342 EXAMINATION PERSONNEL
342.1 Personnel Qualification and Certification
Examiners shall have training and experience commensurate
with the needs of the specified examinations.1
The employer shall certify records of the examiners
employed, showing dates and results of personnel qualifications,
and shall maintain them and make them available
to the Inspector.
344.4 Liquid Penetrant Examination
Examination of castings is covered in para. 302.3.3.
Liquid penetrant examination of welds and of components
other than castings shall be performed in accordance
with BPV Code, Section V, Article 6.
ASME V 07 article 6
T-610 SCOPE
When specified by the referencing Code Section, the
liquid penetrant examination techniques described in this
Article shall be used. In general, this Article is in conformance
with SE-165, Standard Test Method for Liquid Penetrant
Examination. This document provides details to be
considered in the procedures used.
"""When this Article is specified by a referencing Code
Section, the liquid penetrant method described in this Article
shall be used together with Article 1, General Requirements."""
Definitions of terms used in this Article appear
in Mandatory Appendix I of this Article and Article 1,
Appendix I.
Article 1
(e) For those documents that directly reference this Article
for the qualification of NDE personnel, the qualification
shall be in accordance with their employer's written practice
which must be in accordance with one of the following
documents:
(1) SNT-TC-1A,3 Personnel Qualification and Certification
in Nondestructive Testing; or
(2) ANSI/ASNT CP-189,3 ASNT Standard for Qualification
and Certification of Nondestructive Testing Personnel
(f) National or international central certification programs,
such as the ASNT Central Certification Program
(ACCP), may be alternatively used to fulfill the examination
requirements of the documents listed in T-120(e) as
specified in the employer's written practice.
Summary:
Nothing specifically prohibits the welder from performing the code exam itself. However that welder must be certified as an examiner per the requirements of Section V.
That presents a problem for production. 1 examiner can support 4 plus welders. So are you going to waste time having a welder go through the hoops of training and qualification for these exams and the inherent time spent on the exams themselves (including report writing), or are you going to have the welder move on to the next weld while an examiner follows behind four or more welders?
From an efficiency standpoint alone, it doesn't make any sense for the welder to be bogged down with this exam or the extra training and qualification time. The welder should in my opinion be trained visually to recognize things that can be a problem before turning it over to examination, but that would be the extent of it.
There is in my personal opinion a conflict of interest with anyone welding and making a final call, but there is nothing specifically prohibiting the examiner either, but again, why would you want to risk it? It's not really saving the manufacture anything, but could potentially cost them a lot.
Respectfully,
Gerald
I don't disagree with the logic of the discussions, but you may be overlooking the situation of the small shop that may have as few as one or two employees.
I've been in that situation where I welded "one of a kind" items for a military contract. In that case I was the welder and inspector. The conditions were as mentioned by Gerald, I was qualified as a welder, I qualified the WPS, I performed the machining, I did the welding, and I did the final inspections as the qualified visual and penetrant inspector. The "owner" accepted the welded components with full knowledge that I was chief cook and bottlewasher that was backed by the appropriate certifications for welding and inspection.
The bottom line is that I was responsible should anything happen regardless of who welded it or who inspected it. As for economics, when a limited number of parts are being manufactured is it more economical to have one person do all the work or have three, four, or five people standing around watching while each person takes his turn in succession to perform a designated function?
Best regards - Al
There are concessions that must be made in small shops. However; with the way invitations to bid are sent out these days, those small shops are getting fewer and fewer inbetween that can do the work and or get their foot in the door to bid. If your shop floor consist of <=5 people only, then I'd agree with you. However; again, that situation is more the exception than the rule at this point in time. In such an environment, there are other factors that apply, such as a shop like that could least afford to take a hit from shoddy work. Normal market forces will flush them out if they are doing something untoward. My post was primarily aimed at mid to large size operations.
Regards,
Gerald
Forum
