Welding certs.........again?

Date 08-13-2008 15:36

I would just look at his maintenance list and verify that none of the dates are more than 6 months apart(or whatever the period of effectiveness the code says that you are working to). Someone who works for themselves is a bit tougher, because he will have to have documentation from his clients that he has used XXXX process in the positions qualified while working for them and these should not have any dates any further apart than the period of effectiveness of the code that you are working to.

I'm sure some of these other guys will chime in that are single welder/owner outfits and say how they maintain their continuity.

By hogan

Date 08-13-2008 16:02

"Someone who works for themselves is a bit tougher, because he will have to have documentation from his clients that he has used XXXX process in the positions qualified while working for them and these should not have any dates any further apart than the period of effectiveness of the code that you are working to"

Is this listed is a requirement somewhere?

By hogan

Date 08-13-2008 16:03

I don't remember seeing anything saying a one man shop can't perform his own continuity

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 08-13-2008 16:30

I figured the practice would look questionable, especially to an auditor...I don't remember seeing anything written like that either.

By hogan

Date 08-13-2008 16:37

I agree that when working to a code it would be questionable. But how many one man shops do you think have certifications that would require an audit? I guess it could be required by the auditor of the shop that is contracting the one man shop.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 08-13-2008 17:01

Like the original poster who is looking over a sub's paperwork......

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 08-13-2008 17:10

Something else that came to mind....if you hire on a sub, you could make them submit to a test, if you didn't feel like the documentation was substantial enough to support their continuity, and then if they were on the job long enough, you could keep your own maintenance log on them. I'm guessing that when a rig rolls up on most jobsites, somebody tests these people before letting them weld on the job, or either makes certain they have proper documentation. After all if you hire them, you are responsible for the welding that takes place, so you might want to be certain that you don't have a problem with their ability to place sound weld before they get started.

By CWI555

Date 08-14-2008 11:10

I would say a one man shop would have to take extra steps to answer the ethical/auditor concerns. I don't think it's required, but in my personal experience, they usually will call in someone else to do that for them to avoid the audit issues. If it cost 400 bucks every six months it would be a cheap option to avoid the auditors / questionable practice.

By waynekoe (**)

Date 08-13-2008 17:06 Edited 08-13-2008 17:09

Hogan, as far as AWS goes, there isn't any requirement that says a one person contractor can't verify their own continuity. As far as I have been able to assertain, all that they are required to produce is a signed letter (preferably on their letterhead) stating that they have used that particular process in each six month period since they last tested. Section 4.1.3.1 in D1.1 only states "use of process" , not position. Of coarse, the more documentation, the less appearence of impropriety there is, and I stress the "appearence of impropriety" part of that. A single hand operation is a subcontrator and the contractor is responsible for blah, blah, blah. But, yeh, your right.-Wayne

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 08-13-2008 17:13

You are correct Wayne, AWS D1.1 para 4.1.3.1 only mentions the process...not the position. I should have looked it up rather than thinking out loud, so thank you for pointing that out.

By waynekoe (**)

Date 08-13-2008 19:00

You freakin' moroon!!!

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 08-13-2008 19:07

A one man operation is a company. A company can maintain their own continuity reports. Many of the codes do not address how this is done. The "Continuity Log" is something that is not addressed by most codes. An individual quality system may address the item however an individual log is by no means required.

If my quality system says I will verify that a welder has used a process by the fact they have continued in employement, that is completely acceptable. There is no requirement for a log or details of how it is to be used. A date, time and initial on the back of a WPQ works for me. If I am reviewing a contractors records and that is how it is handled, there is nothing that say that is wrong.

Depending upon the information contaned, a companies time system could be used as proof of using the process. The continuiaty log/system can be as simple or complex as one want's. Just because a contractor is only one person, I don't doubt their recordkeeping system any more than a large company. It may be the other way around some times.

Just my opinion. ASME Sec IX alone does not address what method is used. Below is an Interpretation. The AWS D1.1 code makes NO reference to the issue of a continuity log.

Question: Is it a requirement of QW-322 for a
manufacturer to maintain records to demonstrate a
welder's or welding operator's continuing
qualification for a process from the date of the
original qualification test?

Reply: Section IX does not address how
conformance to QW-322 is demonstrated. Other book
sections may address the maintenance of records.

Or AWS D1.1

4.1.3.1 Welders and Welding Operators. The
welder's or welding operator's qualification as specified
in this code shall be considered as remaining in effect
indefinitely unless (1) the welder is not engaged in a
given process of welding for which the welder or welding
operator is qualified for a period exceeding six months or
unless (2) there is some specific reason to question a
welder's or welding operator's ability (see 4.32.1).

Again, code rules are not a replacement for a good written quality system. If your companies quality system indicates a method to be used, then you could incorporate him into that system (for D1.1) only I think. There is no allowance by ASME for you to accept the certification of a welder not tested and certified by your organization.

Have a good one.

By flamin

Date 08-13-2008 20:20

Thanks for the replies guys!!

I'm not totally clear on the matter yet, but I do see the direction this is heading (I think).

Jason

By ziggy

Date 08-18-2008 01:21

Jason

Here is another possible consideration: If fabricator "A" is awarded a job and for whatever reason they decide to sub some or all of the work out to subcontractor "B", it would behoove fabricator "A" to examine their customer's contract for an "assignment of work" clause. Many contracts that fabricators sign contain such a clause and for good reason. For all the customer knows they contracted with fabricator "A" to perform certain fabrication, not subcontractor "B" or anyone other subcontractor. (Assignment of work clauses rarely pertain to suppliers; deck, joist, etc.) Therefore, if the customer's contract contains the "assignment of work" clause, which typically controls any subcontracting of work (it may allow it but the customer must be notified of the assignment, or the contract may not allow any subcontracting of work), then fabricator "A" must abide by the contract or face consequences. As one of the previous comments stated, the bottom line is that fabricator "A" will be held responsible by the customer regardless of who performed the welding or fabrication.

Just a thought,

ziggy