Need Some Advise!!!

Date 12-30-2008 18:55

John,
That sounds like a tough spot to be in. The first thing that came to mind is that your reputation will follow you wherever you go. QC is a small world at times. I believe that the codes you are working with mandate your position and your responsibilities should be well defined. In your position I would be concerned as well. Just my opinion but I would be looking for work elsewhere. Keep your inspections to the letter of the code, nothing more nothing less. Things like approved drawing and a engineers stamp are typically required for code work. I would not jump up and down about the situation you described with the pad eye. If they want a report then note in the report what you have described here. That this item has no approved dwg's and such, note any applicable discontinuities apparent. Don't compromise or roll over. I am also QC for a fab shop. I make it a habit to never weld anything for a customer in our shop. I doesn't matter if you are ten times better than anyone in the shop. A clear separation of QC and production is recommended, and sometimes required. God luck

By pipewelder_1999 (****)

Date 12-30-2008 19:20

I made the jump from welding on submarine piping systems to boilers and pressure vessels. The amount of documentation and control changed considerably. I will admit that some of it was a relief as I thought having to take a welding test every 30 days was an extreme reading of "... minimum requirement for .... " that some commands took advantage of.

When I got out of the Navy

I was amazed that 1200 PSI boiler tubes didn't even require a visual by a "certified" inspector or RT or something.
I sw where undercut was ALLLOWED as long as it wasn't too deep.
I saw lifting lugs welded onto boiler waterwall panels WITHOUT NDE.
Welders could weld "Forever" as long as they used the process.

On the other side I saw

3/4" sch 80 pipes open to the atmosphere with 1 1/2 pages of procedure for welding in on a steam trap manifold.

I saw welders have their monthly quals rejected for tungsten inclusions that measured 1/64" of an inch. Just becuse it was tungsten. It was well below the allowable indication size and was rounded.

I have seen people threatened with reduction in pay to the next lower paygrade and 1/2 mos pay for two mos for welding something with the correct material without getting the typo corrected in the work procedure prior to doing it. The boat left before the typo was corrected and routed yet the person still was written up. Had the type been corrected prior to getting underway it would have been late. No punishment for the procedure writer that didn't know the difference between RN 60 and RN67.

The specifications for industries vary. Everything should be written somewhere. A welding inspector is of little value without specifications and acceptance criteria. The advantage of sticking to "What the code says" is always knowing where you stand. I know someone in the past that left a decent paying job 2 minutes from his front door over flame straightening duplex. If you talk to him today, he has no regrets nor a full time job.

Getting a clear understanding of what y our employer wants is highly advised. If the person you work for has different "inspection ethics" than you it can be a difficult position. Engineering departments may not understand the pressure you are under to decide if something is "acceptable" and maybe talking with them can help provide some acceptance criteria for things. Also look in your comnpanies quality manual. See what the policies are. What the organizational structure is supposed to be etc.

Thos are just opinions basedd on very limited experience and may not be suitable for all situations. :)

By dmilesdot (**)

Date 12-30-2008 19:47

Hogan gave good advice. Go strictly by the code applicable acceptance standards, nothing more, nothing less. If there is a document required for acceptance and it doesnt meet the criteria, dont sign it. Sometimes this is easier said than done when management puts the pressure on, but you can always offer to let them sign. I have been in your position in the past, you should take your talent and go elsewhere there are many companies that are always looking for qualified inspectors. Try the job find right here on the AWS website,www.ndt.org/jobs, inspectionjobs.com or www.rigzone.com just to name a few.
good luck
Dave

By raptor34 (**)

Date 12-30-2008 20:13

I agree with Hogan that QC and welders should be seperate, and that the code is code. If you roll over one time for these guys they will expect it on everything. I saw a rig that the derrick collaped from a pad eye ripping off while they were rigging up and killed the driller and the floor hand. It was a brand new rig that had just pulled into the yard. The same manufacturer also had a pad eye welded to the top of the derrick for fall protection and when it was tested by the end user the supposed 1/4'' I-beam it was welded to ripped away and it was less than 1/16'' thick. These rigs came from a manufaturer in Texas. If it were me I would find a new job. You dont need to put up with people like that and there is to much work going on to be pushed around.

By Jriley1972 (*)

Date 12-30-2008 22:29

I sure have appreciated everything you guys are telling me. To put your minds at ease I don't roll over well, I retired as a Army First Sergeant, matter of fact I constantly get corrected on the fact that I'm to direct with my opinion. But I'm a no B.S. type of person. I've never really been politally correct and have always called the why I see it and like people to do the same with me. They really hate it when I quote code to them and they really hate it when I write the NCR's. I plan on getting my resume updated but I'm leery of actually putting this company down as a "former employer" I will be the first to tell you I don't know enough about D1.1 or API or ASME IX but I'm learning it on a speed curve that most couldn't comprehend and I'm doing it with little or no guidance. Recently, my manager got me an assistant and he has been a tremendous help with me getting my point across to these knuckle heads here. Now I'm not the only a-hole telling them they're wrong, but he has seen the light at the end of this tunnel and he will be leaving me as soon as something else comes up and I really can't blame him. This was his first job as an inspector also, and unfortunately this place has put a bad taste in his month. One question I have is if it comes down to it so I report these "infractions" of code to the governing bodies, or better yet when I get my CWI am I obligated to report them. I have read over my of the books published about what a CWI's is responsible for and his/her code of ethics which should be upheld. I have no intentions of ruining my reputation for these people and as it was said the QC world is small at time and I don't want to gain that type of rep. I do appreciate everyone's input on this and again thanks. I think I'll be looking for a job now so if anyone of you guys happen to get an resume with former employer list as "don't want to talk about you know" it's me!!!

By Jriley1972 (*)

Date 12-30-2008 22:30

Hey Raptor,
Do you know what manufacture it was and who it was built for?

By vagabond (***)

Date 12-31-2008 03:50

I'll echo the thoughts of some others here. . . . you don't need to like it to document it and turn it over as such. I am in the oilfield also at present and have spent a good deal of time around that type of work (mostly as a welder or pipefitter). We are a sub for a major oil company and do a lot of construction and maintenance work. I see stuff almost daily that I don't like, we have checklists and then of course inevitably when an item is encountered the question is "Is it critical to start-up???" But regardless it gets turned over to the client with our documentation and unless it is pretty serious it gets put online. There is never any follow up on our punchlist items and it's very frustrating at times but I have to remind myself that my job involves protecting the company I work for and I strive to make the documentation as accurate as possible. No one ever complains about the notes (I don't really think most ever get read) We have a seperate contractor for 3rd party QA and if we all get together and throw a fit SOMETIMES the situation is fixed to our satisfaction. But the majority of the time it's still the oilfield and time is money. . . . . . and the actuaries figured out years ago that it's a lot cheaper to kill a few people once and a while than to really be safe all the time, and if they are subs it doesn't go on thier record.

By dafeeder (*)

Date 12-31-2008 17:53 Edited 12-31-2008 17:56

Vagabond,

I am just starting classes in NDT at Cowley CC and after reading your post I question if I even want to go into this career.

"But the majority of the time it's still the oilfield and time is money. . . . . . and the actuaries figured out years ago that it's a lot cheaper to kill a few people once and a while than to really be safe all the time"

If an inspectors ethics are compromised for the ALMIGHTY dollar over the value of a life then why even inspect anything? I kind of figured inspectors might not be the most well liked people on a job sight or in the company, but to turn the other way because actuaries think it's a lot cheaper to kill a few people once and a while than to really be safe all the time is disturbing! Thanks everybody and for all the posts on AWS forum because there is a lot of great information on here.

By vagabond (***)

Date 01-01-2009 05:39 Edited 01-01-2009 05:55

My post was certainly not intended to discourage anyone from a career in inspection. The world at large in my opinion needs more ethical inspectors. I realize this post had a very bitter note but don't misunderstand me I do love what I do. I have always loved welding and building and I spent 20 yrs. of my life learning those skills and perfecting them. I recently became a CWI and before that I had helped CWIs quite a bit as a foreman on jobs. I think inspectors fight an uphill battle a lot of the time, however we do make a difference. Big oil is it's own thing and each oilfield is a different arena, but I've never felt as though it is the safest of industries. Safety is given great lip service in the oil patch as is quality control. But what is said and what is done is often quite different. Overall I feel very fortunate to have the job I have. I think the company I work for has a good QC program and I think we are backed up by a good 3rd party QA program. BUT our client at times is willing to overlook things which have the potential to become problematic. I think any concientous inspector should be very concerned with potential problems. I haven't ever turned over a job that I thought was immediately life threatening, but things like piping flanges rubbing against other piping systems and lack of support are fairly normal things that the client will willingly overlook in order to get a system up and running. By the way Gerald I enjoyed your post I may start a collection of links myself on some of the accidents that have happened. Maybe it would be good subject material for some meetings!! They say a picture is worth a 1000 words and I'm convinced that the words are a waste of breath at this point. Lastly dafeeder let me say you should never turn the other way or ignore problems but at times all you can do is document the problems and refuse to sign off on them an move on. It's frustrating and it makes me feel like I'm wasting a lot of my time but on the other hand I am creating a permanent record that will be referred to if, God forbid something ever does come apart.

By raptor34 (**)

Date 01-01-2009 03:01

I dont remember the manufacturer but they were sold to Aztec Well Servicing in the summer of 2006.

By CWI555

Date 12-31-2008 04:07

It's a bit like Russian roulette to me. Who's going to take the bullet when chance rolls the loaded cylinder in to firing position. You can dodge that bullet for days, weeks, months or even years. However; sooner or later, something is going to fail when shoddy workmanship and or inspection if not outright pencil whipping is going on. On that day the lawyers will decend on it like a horde of ravenous locust, and possibly, if someone is seriously injured/killed, or the damage toll is to high, the police or other form of law enforcement will get involved. A quick check on the net will result in many many many examples of when things went wrong.

Failure/fracture analysis, review of records, and a host of other activities will ensue. Who then gets the bullet? At this time, it's another round of russian roulette blame game.
Sometimes you can get away with it, sometimes not.

1967 collapse of the Point Pleasant Bridge linking West Virginia and Ohio http://corrosion-doctors.org/Bridges/Silver-Bridge.htm appears that the dis-assembly of the eye bar was deemed by some bean counter or production hand to "not be important".

1978 Cooling tower collapse, Willow Island, W.Va., http://wvgazette.com/News/WillowIsland/200804250422 I am sure the 51 dead's families where not to happy about how this went down.

1979 three mile island nuclear. Failure to adhere to procedures, improper risk analysis, to name a few. I doubt you need a link for this one.

1981 collapse of walkways in the Kansas City (Mo.) Hyatt Regency Hotel poor design, lack of DCN's, poor inspections ect.

1985 Earthquake, Mexico City, Mexico Poor inspections, bad concrete death toll still not clear

1987 collapse of the under-construction L'Ambiance Plaza apartment building in Bridgeport, Conn http://www.engineering.com/Library/ArticlesPage/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/168/LAmbiance-Plazza.aspx pay particular attention to the comments about ACI code in the middle of the page, and at the bottom, the comments about poor welding. Lots of money changed hands on this one

1988 Tank failure, Ashland Oil Co., Pittsburgh, Pa. http://www.depweb.state.pa.us/heritage/cwp/view.asp?a=3&q=444629
this one would seem to have a direct implication in your line of work. Therefore some quotes from the page linked

"The collapse could have been and should have been averted. Both the existence of the flaw and the tendency of the tank steel to react brittlely under normal regional climatic and service conditions were discoverable through the application of good engineering, construction, and inspection practices and by compliance with applicable industry and governmental standards.

The failure by Ashland to find the flaw and establish relevant material properties are the two most serious excursions from sound practice and code compliance by the company, but they are by no means the only ones. Ashland, its employees, and some contractors displayed a pervasive pattern of negligence and ignorance in selecting, assigning, constructing, supervising, and inspecting the reconstruction project."

I'll leave you to your own devices for others. I have hundreds of these links, both historical and recent. The point is, When people like us fail to do our jobs properly, we can lose those jobs. However; in truth we are not the ones taking the literal bullet. It's the people who lost their lives, or damage to the environment, or millions lost that drives a company under and thus the soup line for the men and women that worked for that company. Those are the real bullet sponges for such incidents.

Given that, to me what you should do is obvious.

My opinion for what its worth,
Gerald

By dbigkahunna (****)

Date 01-01-2009 17:43

Lets add on to this on the Ashland project:
"Reconstruction of the tank in Pennsylvania failed to conform in many significant respects with the applicable industry standard or with the terms of the contract for the project. The construction deficiencies attributable to reassembly however, did not materially contribute to the collapse of the tank."
The root cause of the Ashland catastrophe was brittle fracture.
Here is another one you may have not heard of which is interesting:
http://www.chemsafety.gov/news_releases/docs/CSBNewsReleaseAlliedTerminals12.8.08.pdf
While all the information is not in on this incident, I would venture this will also be attributed to brittle fracture. Even though the welding sucked. And I bet in the legal wrangling the question will be were these butt strap replacements door sheet inserts (100% radiography) or inserts (spot only radiography). Went through this discussion with a client several years ago. Full radiography is chingles $$$. They elected to go spot with a full hydro. I still have the customers letter where this is what they wanted. My view is these are door sheets and require 100% radiography.

But I would never have taken this responsibility on my own. And if an inspector suspects something is hinky, LEAVE. Get away from the company then call anyone you think can help the situation if you feel it will do some good. Some company cultures are so bad nothing except them going out of business will ever change them. Do you want to die on that hill?
BABRT's

By CWI555

Date 01-01-2009 21:31

the example of Ashland was to exemplify one point. It doesn't matter if the inspection was pencil whipped or had anything to do with the failure or not. The innuendo of it will be put out there as they did in Ashland as a mitigating factor.
If you inspect any given item, and an associated item fails, and your particular item was discovered during the investigation to have been poorly inspected or pencil whipped, it's going to be mentioned as was the cases in Ashland. It was irrelevant at that point that it was brittle failure, the implication is already out the door.
Does it really make any difference at that time to an inspector if it was or was not their fault? No. Their name was associated with it, it was reported as being poorly inspected or not at all, they are still out of a job, and no one is ever going to trust their name again.

It is better to drag up and walk of a job early than do anything "hinky" as you say. That was the point of that particular reference.

Regards,
Gerald

By 803056

Date 01-02-2009 14:43

Welding inspectors are used as the "whipping boy" by some contractors and some individuals allow themselves to become their victims.

The inspector is tasked with ensuring the product meets the applicable standards. Those standards may be codes that have legal standing or specifications that are contractual obligations. That responsibility requires the inspector to have a strong backbone and the ability to stand up to management that has different interests. The one thing that the inspector must remember is that public safety must be considered. The inspector must be willing to stand his ground when an issue that affects the safety and well being of fellow workers or the public is involved.

The inspector is provided with certain tools to enable him (or her) to do their job properly. There are codes, standards, specifications, drawings, contracts, etc. that spell out what the job requirements are. When those requirements are not met, the inspector rejects the work. The report is the inspector's tool or his means to convey to the employer or client what was observed or what the test results were. The inspector relies on management to take the proper action to correct the situation. There may be little recourse for the inspector when management fails to meet their obligation. If the problems are insurmountable, there is little recourse but to leave the employer and move on. The alternative is to become management's "whipping boy".

The best advice I can give is to write very detailed reports and include photographs, sketches, and include references to specific code/job requirements that are not being met. General statements are not as persuasive as detailed accounts of the problems encountered. Should litigation be taken by a party injured or a client, your detailed reports are your defence that you met your responsibility as an inspector. You have to keep copies of your reports so that you have objective evidence you took the proper actions and you performed your job with diligence. CYA is a way of life in today's business climate.

Most inspectors are not working on government funded jobs, thus there is no "whistleblower" protection offered to inspectors that report their employers to government agencies, if there is one to report to. Most third party certification programs have no mechanism to address improper actions on the part of management. The fact that a fabricator is "Certified" holds little regard on my part. Some companies do what is necessary to get certified, but then the QA manual is placed on the shelf, never to see the light of day until the next audit.

Good luck with what ever your course of action is.

Best regards - Al

By ggolden Date 01-21-2009 19:25

Lets start that I am a newbie at this web site and not quite sure how to jump in there. This isn't a reply but intended as a question. Here's the scenario, radiograhpy inspection requirment is 10% to B31.3, welding contractor welds 100 welds, shoots 15 (5% more with anticipation of repairs), 10 are acceptable but 5 are repairs. Is it acceptable to cut out the 5 repairs call them as new welds and say that they have met the 10% requirement. Which applicable codes govern, a. contractor must make all repairs and shoot two more of the same welders to check further for defects.

By jmdugan10 (*)

Date 01-26-2009 16:29

ggolden-- you should start a new topic concerning your question. You will get more responses to it, and wlecome to the forum by the way.

I would say that the contractor shot himself in the foot. They went beyond the requirements of the code now they are hung by it. Stick to the code and you can't go wrong. I can't see how what you have presented us could be acceptable by code or ethical.

By 3.2 Inspector (***)

Date 01-26-2009 16:49

The code requirements are minimum!
If the contractor choose to do more than required by code, he must repair and extend accordingly.

Keep in mind that the "penalty" welds to be examined has to be made by the welder who had repairs.

Examination less than 100% is not to assure quality for the system, but to have faith that the welder(s) can make good welds over and over again, and by that "assuring" the system meet the requirements.

3.2