The UL saga continues.

By Kix

Date 01-09-2009 18:07 Edited 01-09-2009 18:48

Some of you might remember the thread I started a while back (What would you do) the one about the UL inspection and some of the defect I found on a painted ladder. Well, the owner of the manufacture that builds these ladders called the UL guys over here in Appleton Wisconsin to come up and review what I had marked up on there ladder. The UL guy shows up, very nice and very intelligent, and I show him what my findings are. I went right to the most obvious weld right off the bat to get a feel for how this guy was going to be. http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a189/vdubin474/Ladder12-18-08.jpg I show him this weld and he starts giving me the run around about how he doesn't see anything wrong with it and that it shouldn't effect the structural integrity of the weld. So I said who are you to say that the integrity of the weld isn't effected. He says that's what the MAG particle determines and the UL guys back at the plant MAGed it and signed off on it so it has to be good.
So he went through my finding and agreed with me on 2 welds, one with sever undercut http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a189/vdubin474/Ladder010pic.jpg and one with some overlap that was on way more then just this one. So he starts telling me that there is some standard that UL goes buy stating that if the overlapped portion of the weld is in a restart and is sitting back the diameter of the weld size on top of the first bead then it's ok. So I said well, I've never heard of that and if that's the case then what about this one.http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a189/vdubin474/RKLadder011pic.jpg He said this one is good, but if you notice the overlap that looks like a hole in the top of the weld it clearly doesn't meet his story. Needless to say, we're more worried about the rust that is going to be seeping out of these welds then whether or not they are going to cause the ladder to fail and he still only marked up 2 spots of the 20 or so that are going to be rusting underneath all the overlap. Here's another on that will surely rust over time and it even has a crater for water to sit in notice no marks. This is where the air pissed out due to overlap and lack of fusion when the paint was baked. http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a189/vdubin474/Ladder612-18-08.jpg http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a189/vdubin474/Ladder512-18-08.jpg
Sorry for the rant, I'm just disappointed that this UL inspector ran me around so much that I got dizzy. I think this guy could also have been a lawyer to if he wanted. I was throwing all kinds of stuff at him and he lead me in circles about how didn't know what condition the ladder was in when it was inspected and this other crap. I asked well aren't you guys supposed to speak up if something is not in any condition to be inspected and also not to sign of on anything. He said yes and I said well, this ladder was obviously ready for inspection then wasn't it. Then he starts telling me about the smoke on the welds and silicone and how it effects the inspection and I just shut up because I wasn't getting anywhere. lol K I'm done ;-)

By BryonLewis (****)

Date 01-09-2009 18:25

Was this prick a CWI? Maybe UL should stay with "inspecting" light sockets again.

By Kix

Date 01-09-2009 18:44

Yes he was a CWI and NDT level I forgot and he had a whole mess of other credentials for pump testing and other things. I'm just mad because he's making me out to look like a hard A$$ that doen't know what he's talking about. I'm really not a hard ass, I'm sure I could of found a lot more then I did if I had that ladder off the truck and was able to properly inspect it.

By 803056

Date 01-10-2009 15:09 Edited 01-10-2009 15:22

Hello Kix;

Of course this UL inspector is going to try to cover the tracks of his fellow inspector. Making his coworker and company look like the jerks they are isn't going to further his career with UL.

Let's go back to the beginning on this project. What is called out in the project specification? Isn't this aerial apparatus covered by the NFPA? If it is, the welding has to meet AWS D1.X. What does UL certify the welding to? Aren't they required to certify the aerial apparatus to NFPA / AWS D1.1?

I would ask to see a copy of their written visual inspection procedures and acceptance criteria (if they have them). If they don't have a written procedure and acceptance criteria the inspections they perform are suspect from the very start. Any inspections performed by UL should be done following the procedures and using the appropriate acceptance criteria. If they do not meet the requirements of the project specifications (which I would hope references NFPA) the inspections would be invalid unless they were accepted (in writing ) by your employer.

What are your employer inspection requirements? Does your employer include any criteria in the purchase order or project specifications? If not, your employer has some very wobbly legs to stand on.

The bottom line is that your employer is responsible for anything they sell to their customers. I don't care how much paperwork is piled up in support that the aerial ladder is "A-OK", your employer is first in line to be sued should anyone get hurt by the ladder. If it fails and a fireman is injured, his lawyers will shred your employer. If a piece falls off or if the fireman's boot comes off and hits a bystander, your company will be in line as a defendant. It is in your employer's best interest to ensure everything they sell is better than what is required by the appropriate standards. It is their only defence should they be named in a court action. You can expect to be called to the stand as well and you will be expected to give an accurate account of what you saw and what you reported to your employer. Your testimony will bring a smile to the plaintiffs lawyer's lips.

There are a few other things that you can do in an effort to protect your employer's interest. Ask for copies of the subcontractor's welding procedures and welder qualifications. A thorough review of the welding documents can often reveal weaknesses in their welding program. Likewise, ask for copies of their inspector's qualifications and certifications. Then ask for their inspection procedures, and lastly, ask for a copy of their QA/QC manual to verify the preceding documents and systems were actually implemented. More than likely, their QC /QA program is a house of cards that will collapse when you start asking the right questions.

Lastly, if you truly suspect the UL inspectors were not acting in good faith you can file charges against them with the AWS Certification Committee once you have all the information necessary to support your claim. After all, you said they represented themselves as CWIs. They do have an obligation to do their jobs in a manner that is consistent with our code of ethics. I would suggest you contact Joe Kane on this matter. He has years of involvement with "Code of Ethics" violations from his work as a member of the AWS Certification Committee.

Best regards - Al

By CWI555

Date 01-12-2009 16:13

"So I said who are you to say that the integrity of the weld isn't effected. He says that's what the MAG particle determines"

?????????????
Based on the picture, I would be suprised if it could be MT'd correctly without overwhelming geometric indications to begin with.

I would also be very interested in reading the material that says MT determines structural integrity of a weld. To my knowledge, I could weld the thing with coat hanger wire and plausibly not ever see any "NDE" indications, but that doesn't mean the weld is structurally sound.

By Joseph P. Kane (****)

Date 01-12-2009 16:30

Kix

What is the final word on these defects???? What did you tell the customer?

While a fire ladder is not probably listed as a "Fracture Critical" or "Dynamically loaded structure" like a bridge, in real life use, that ladder will be flexing and twisting around like crazy and will probably be overloaded whenever it is used in a real life rescue. Those defects you showed pictures of are clearly dangerous stress risers.

I am amazed at the statement that MT results rule! In every code that I have ever seen, Visual results rule, and NDT results confirm or support a visual finding. I know that the MT results on one of those fillet welds will result in indications that cannot be properly evaluated due to the amount of particle that would be retained.

I sure hope someone will order the defects to be repaired! This condition is scary!!

Joe Kane

By Kix

Date 01-19-2009 14:40

Joe,
I have not heard anything lately about what is going to be done. I've been working out on the road for the past week and have been out of touch with everyone pretty much. As far as I know we are going to present these pictures to the manufacturer and either have them fix the problem areas or ask them how they want us to fix them. If they tell us to caulk them like they did on their outrigger tubes, I will be upset. As asked above , yes, this all has to meet NFPA standards which references AWS D1.X codes. I did ask to see UL's "special" VT inspection criteria, but he said he didn't know if he could show it to me since I'm not a UL employee. He said he would see if he could get me that information (sure he will).
You are also correct about the fact that these ladders and aerial structures will at some point get overloaded. They knock down walls with them, push cars out of the way, and will put as many people on them as it takes to rescue if in a bad situation. They also get baked in fires every once in awhile, but they come back here for testing after that happens. We will not be putting this manufacturers aerial devices back on our trucks anymore after this truck ships. It is no longer an option for our custom trucks.

Thanks for all of your experience guys!!