Not logged inAmerican Welding Society Forum
Forum AWS Website Help Search Login
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / ASME Visual Inspections
- - By BIGBOB (*) Date 04-02-2013 13:26
Is an AWS CWI authorized to perform visual inspections under ASME VIII?
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 04-02-2013 16:47
As an in-house QC inspector: yes.

As a customer/owner's third party inspector: yes

There is a difference between the responsibilities of the TPI representing an owner or a manufacturer's quality control inspector and what is called the Authorized Inspector. The Authorized Inspector usually represents the insurance company that provides coverage/insurance for the manufacturer's products that have a code stamped nameplate. Some manufacturer's also employ an Authorized Inspector rather than depend on the insurance company's AI.

The Authorized Inspector received his/her credentials after passing the requisite examinations from the NBIC. The AI is typically responsible for reviewing the design calculations, procedures for controlled processes such as welding and NDT, and manufacturing of the pressure vessel. They have to perform a visual inspection of the completed unit, witness the hydrostatic pressure test,  and sign off on the appropriate documents attesting to the fact the vessel met all the requirements of the code.

The AI does not represent the customer or the owner. If there are customer expectation above and beyond the minimum requirements of the code, it is better for the owner/customer to hire their own TPI to monitor the fabrication, schedule, inspection, as well as any required testing.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By BIGBOB (*) Date 04-03-2013 12:02
Thanks for the information Al. I have some items that get modified or repaired on some pressure vessels and getting an AI in isn't always so easy or should I say quick. This was a critical path for me everytime that we needed to weld in a simple drain filter screen!
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 04-03-2013 13:40
Things get interesting any time a pressure boundary is involved. You have to allow time in your schedule for the AI to review the drawings and the calculation, possibly review a new WPS when welding is involved, and possibly consider the implications when dissimilar metals come into play. Then of course there is the hydrotest, fun, fun, fun for everyone.

The system can seem to be cumbersome at times, but it is a system of checks and balances that has made our society a safer place, but at a price. Ultimately one must ask the question, “Is the added cost of involving an insurance carrier and their representative, the AI, cost effective?”

Before answering the question consider the following: before the arrival of ASME and the boys from Hartford Steam Boiler Insurance there was an average of a boiler explosion a day. Of course you may not be building a fired pressure vessel, but I would not be surprised if I were to discover the number of unfired pressure vessels failures was nearly as frequent during the same time frame. In today’s environment what is the economic impact of a similar failure rate? I believe it is pretty evident that the added burden of the AI’s involvement is cost effective.

Some people that frequent this forum lament the limited oversight required for the welding performed in the structural steel industry, both in the shop and field. Some have voiced a sentiment that those individuals charged with welding should be required to be licensed before being allowed to weld on a steel framed structure. It is an idea that would impact how work is done in both the shop and in the field. It would impact the price paid to have buildings fabricated and erected and the cost of a handrail installed by a homeowner. We live in a price conscious society. Anything that would drive prices up is viewed with suspicion by the squinty eyed folks in the office.

Those that govern rationalize everything based on cost. What is the financial impact of a failure? In the calculation of cost is a factor for how many lives could be lost and at what cost? Everything comes down to cost. Even fighting a war boils down to the financial impact and whether the battle is worthwhile based on economics.

I read an interesting dissertation by a graduate student from the Naval War College in Newport R.I. many years ago. It grabbed my attention because it analyzed the cost of waging a limited nuclear war in Europe. The bottom line was that the collateral damage to the buildings, equipment, infrastructure, and the fact that the contamination of the land and everything on the land made nuclear war uneconomical. In comparison, if conventional warfare could accomplish the same result it represents a huge savings in comparison and could be viewed as economically viable.

I read another dissertation I read nearly thirty years ago that considered what it would take to wage war in the Middle East during the summer months. The logistics of simply providing enough water to each combatant was a factor considered. Another factor was the cost of the infrastructure required to supply each combatant. Economics simply makes such warfare uneconomical. Ignoring the cost of waging war is something that can bankrupt the combatants. I wonder if the boys in the Whitehouse at the time read that study before heading over to Iraq.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By supermoto (***) Date 04-03-2013 13:46
When I was at VC Summer for my short 6 month stay, CB&I(formerly SHAW) didn't allow me to do any VT as a CWI.  I had to get a my VT level II before performing any visual inspection.  I was never asked to do so but they said a CWI wasn't valid.  I am not a ASME guy at all but they said ASME didn't recognize the CWI for VT.  Maybe someone could enlighten me why that is.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 04-03-2013 15:17
I can't provide any real information other than one of the ASME code sections used to include a reference to the AWS CWI for VT. That isn't to say the current edition does.

It is interesting to note that if you send in a copy of AWS certification and two box tops and two thin dimes to ASNT they will award you their ACCP Level II certification for VT. That being the case, it sounds like someone from CB&I had a hair across their ass because they flunked the AWS examinations. The AWS examinations meet the requirements of SNT-TC-1A and CP-189 provided the employer's written practice recognizes the AWS CWI credential.

It is a different story with NAVSEA TP271. At one time it had been proposed that NAVSEA recognize AWS certification, but the shipyards intervened had had it removed. As one yard rep said to me, "Do you realize how much it would cost us to have all of our VT inspectors get certified by AWS?" By staying the course with employer based certification they don't have to content with outsiders looking at their in-house certifications.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By supermoto (***) Date 04-03-2013 15:24
Agreed. 

ASNT VT Level II that costs $150, isn't that just for "general" inspections?  I think there was another box on there for pressure vessels that required some testing to get that Cert.  I had VT Level II but I didn't see why there was any reasone to renew it, especially since I was paying out of my pocket at the time of expiration.  Maybe they would have excepted it with the silly endoresment.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 04-03-2013 15:41
I agree Noah.

One of the shipyards I deal with required me to take the ASNT Level III VT examinations. They would not accept my SCWI because they said the AWS only requires a 72% score to pass and they said the AWS examination does not include pipe.

I took the ASNT Level III VT examination. It had six (6) questions on welding, brazing, and soldering. What a crock of BS! When it came to renewing my Level III I took it with a local NDT company so the test questions would be relevant to the work I do.

Again, the people that wouldn't accept the AWS credentials probably failed the CWI examinations. There are politics in everything we do.

Al
Parent - - By supermoto (***) Date 04-03-2013 16:25
Yeah the Level II VT exams I took had more questions about remote visual inspection than anything.  I was lucky to know just enough about the different types of remote inspection to pass, but yeah not much on welding.

Politics for sure.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 04-03-2013 18:37 Edited 04-03-2013 22:23
Just ask me on how the human eye works or a question on wire rope or PVC and I am good to go.

Al
Parent - - By CWI555 (*****) Date 04-04-2013 10:11
Ummm which is responsible for color vision, rods or cones? :twisted:
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 04-04-2013 15:29
Cones.

Al
Parent - - By CWI555 (*****) Date 04-04-2013 11:07
NQA-1 gets particular about that. The ACCP program is not allowed by Section III, nor 10CFR50.55A. I am on a Nuclear Construction Gig as the NDE Project LIII, and for this Utility, ASNT LIII's are not allowed, nor is the CWI/SCWI. One of the choke points they have is the business of recertification. Recert's must be by examination (including the Basic exam). Both ASNT, and AWS allow recertification without exam based on continued good performance (three year renewal, or evidence of continued education etc for the anst).
I've let my CWI, and ASNT LIII's go this last Jan. for that reason. I'll go retest if I switch gears and need them again. For the time being I am running on having tested to our corporate written practice.
In your particular case, neither the NDE, nor the NDI part washes for ASME with a CWI by itself. For QC/Inspection, it will run to NQA-1/Section III NCA/as modified by the requirements of the NRC reg guides, and 10CFR50.55A. For NDE, (Examination), it would have been TC1A 1992/1996/2001/2006 (which would take a month of sundays to explain), Section III NCA/NB, and part of Section V along with the already referenced reg guides and CFR's.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 04-04-2013 15:42
That's one reason why I don't bother with nuclear work.

It is bad enough keeping my certs inline for NAVSEA. They too require recertification by examination. It is a pain in the ass and I wonder if it is really buys them what they hope it does and is it worth the bother?

You can go certification broke trying to satisfy everyone.

At some point you have to be able to justify the time and expense of maintaining the certification and whether the work load justifies the efforts. Nuclear work simply doesn't justify the expense in my case. There are too many other industrial sectors that pay better, with better working conditions, and no health hazards associated with the work environment.

I've worked shut downs before as a welder and I stopped working them because it wasn't worth the aggravation and the health hazards associated with them. No radiation is good radiation. There is more money to be made elsewhere.

The nuclear industry has lost many of the NDT personnel due to retirement and because of the red tape involved to get certified, maintain certification, and the limited time you can work in the radiation areas. The bottom line it is it isn't cost effective for the practitioner. Money talks and you know the rest.

Best regards - Al
Parent - - By CWI555 (*****) Date 04-05-2013 07:21
Dunno about the money part, it's worked out alright for me.
Parent - - By 803056 (*****) Date 04-05-2013 13:19
You and I are likely looking at the cost benefit ratio from two different perspectives.

If the employer is footing the cost of maintaining the certifications, including training time, etc. it' one thing, but if you are paying for everything out-of-pocket, it a different story.

I suspect you are operating at a much higher level of competence than I am. I need to know the basics of test methods I use, but the objective of my testing is slightly different from the type of testing you do. In comparison, I am working in the stone age and the equipment I use has not changed dramatically other than to get smaller and more user friendly. My work can't not justify the cost of phased array UT nor will it penetrate some of thicknesses of the equipment I examine.  Likewise, most people would cringe if they were asked to take their high priced equipment into the work environments I work in.

Then of course you must consider the fact that we are all different. What I like would be exactly what someone else would hate. I do not care for long term projects where I have to report day after day to the same location for extended periods of time. My brother on the other hand wants to know exactly where he will be and what he will be doing 30 days or 6 months from now. My cousin has been a Level III Eddy Current for a company for the last 10 years; same plant, same people, same work for 10 years. He likes it and that is good for both his employer and him. I rarely know what project I will be working on a week from today, never mind 6 months from now. That's what makes our world work. In some cases that is exactly what is needed when people partner up. Whether it is a good marriage or a good business partner, it isn't a bad thing when people with different perspectives get together. It provides balance.

I take on jobs that many people will not do because I like the challenge of doing something new, something different and I don't mind getting dirty, working at height, or in confined spaces. It isn't for everyone and I am thankful for that. Remember the old Bob Newhart show? What were the names of the three brothers? Daryl, Daryl, and Daryl if I remember correctly. Their business creed was; "Anything for a buck!" I go by the same philosophy, however, unlike them I usually collect the dollar from the client rather than pay the dollar to the customer. :wink:

Life is good if you can make a living doing what you like to do. Life can be hard if you can't find your niche.

Best regards - Al
Parent - By welderbrent (*****) Date 04-05-2013 14:02
Daryl, Darell, and Darrell.  You got to get the em-pha-sis on the correct syl-lab-le. 

Have a Great Day,  Brent
Parent - - By CWI555 (*****) Date 04-06-2013 00:48 Edited 04-06-2013 00:51
In reality, there are only two things that has kept me at this location. First and foremost, my family. My son spent two years of his life in Mexico, a short stint in Peru, along with some visits to Japan, Austria, Philippines, Canada, and 12 states. He turns eight in a few days. We are not so much different in that respect, but he needed some time to grow roots. Dad can deal with some things he doesn't really care for to make that happen.

Number two is the learning experience. This particular project was first started in 1968. Mothballed, off and on for the next 30 and all associated variations of Section II, then restarted in full 2007. As such, it's registered code of record is summer 73 ASME Section III, Winter 71 Section VIII Div1, the literal first edition of D1.1 some from D1.0, B31.5 refrigeration among other no longer existing pressure piping codes. Most ASTM standards are from 1968 vintage, all adjusted for regulatory commitments, industry events, etc, etc. Everything had to be reconciled to assure nothing slipped through the cracks. We were the first Section III NPT stamp in decades when we got it. For me, it was a challenge that almost ate my lunch for me. I was born in 1966, the same year this design was being drawn up and a year before the reactor vessel was manufactured. In fact, it was almost enough to make me drag if it wasn't for reason number one above.
I not only had to learn how they did nuclear work while I was tossing spit wads at the nuns, I had to learn why they did it that way. I could write a book on the evolution of the IQI in America by itself now (and it was totally hosed back then). I could go on, but you get the idea. You've probably got a real good idea about how hard it is to explain why your now seeing a flaw in structural welds (UT wise) that someone in 1976 failed to report, or worse, why someone in that time could see something and report it, that the latest of this era could not. Those reports cost me many a night of sleep in the last 5 years. The same applies for all the methods, but especially so in regards to MT. Try explaining to a regulator who is fresh out of college, why it is your AC yoke is not picking up a subsurface flaw reported on a weld op sheet MT DC prod report from 1974.

All of that is coupled with being required to marry up the latest and greatest Automated Phased Array on non safety related piping (b31.1 etc), CR radiography, FLIR, and remote video fibrescoping.

About three years in, I was ready to go, but someone asked a very simple question in a meeting that would not have been so simple without the above mentioned pain. That was a moment of awakening for me.
It was after that, i realized i have something no one else I am aware of in my peer group has. A true understanding of the history, methodology, and reasoning of nuclear and other forms of construction, QC, Welding, QA, and NDE from a time which the vast majority who worked it, are dead or retired for good. From that perspective, there is no amount of college that could have provided the learning experience this project afforded me.

The old hands from the era are almost gone and with them their knowledge. Within a decade, they will effectively all be gone. It will be the ultra rare person that can answer the WTF were they thinking question in the years to come. that may or may not translate into $$$, but I am sure it will translate into job satisfaction as it's already done that for me.

Yes we are looking at it from two different perspectives, but not the ones you assumed.

Regards,
Gerald
Parent - By 803056 (*****) Date 04-06-2013 01:26
As I said you are operating on higher level than I am. Most of my work is what I would consider relatively low tech.

Sounds like you have carved out a nice niche. As I said, it is a good thing we don't all come from the same cookie cutter. Life would be boring if we all did the same thing and liked the same thing. Life is an evolution.

Best regards - Al
Up Topic Welding Industry / Inspection & Qualification / ASME Visual Inspections

Powered by mwForum 2.29.2 © 1999-2013 Markus Wichitill