Joey,

If an Inspector or indeed anyone needs to 'show off' then he/she has a problem. However, a question unasked will never be answered. I would rather questions asked sooner than problems later!

Joey,
Have a look at your initial post to Giovanni - I don't think that was very polite.
Your design engineer doesn't understand the code and you should have pointed that out to your Quality Manager  - as 46.00 mentioned.
Just remember, the design engineer may have been to university but that means nothing when it comes to code interpretations.
Cheers,
Shane

It may have been easier to digest the situation had this post been proof read and proper punctuation was used. I'm not even sure if this CWI works for the contractor that is doing the welding or not. He may simply be on-site working for a different contractor that is installing handrails.

I am going to assume that this CWI is working for the contractor that has been tasked with welding the piping connected to this vessel. My comments relate to an individual that is functioning as the contractor's QC inspector. Whether or not the individual is a CWI is not pertinent to the following discussion or my comments. 

As the contractor's QC the individual is the contractor's representative. The contractor is responsible for any work performed on the vessel. QC cannot clap their hands together and say they are not responsible. I take that back, The person working as the contractor's QC can resign his position and then walk away.

In most cases the AI represents the Authorized Inspection Agency (insurance company) that provides insurance coverage for the contractor. The AI is not a Third Party Inspector in the sense the AI does not represent the Owner (the entity) of the vessel. That isn't to say the Owner cannot hire an individual that holds National Board Commission, i.e., AI, to represent their interests, it is however very rare to do so. 

The are certain hoops the contractor has to jump through to obtain and hold an "R" stamp from the National Board. They include:
a) The contractor must have and maintain an agreement with an Authorized Inspection Agency,
b) have a Quality Control Manual that is acceptable to both National Board and the contractor's Inspection Agency,
c) have a current copy of the National Board Inspection Code, and
d) have a copy of the applicable construction code(s).

The contractor seeking the "R" stamp must pass a review by the NBIC (Jurisdiction) and the Authorized Inspection Agency. The contractor has to demonstrate their ability to implement the requirements of the quality control manual. The contractor must have the personnel with the training and experience to carry out those quality control functions necessary to meet the applicable code requirements.

The AI's function is to protect the insurance carrier's (Authorized Inspection Agency) interest by ensuring the conditions set forth in the approved quality control manual and the applicable construction code are fulfilled.

The poster in this case has done the right thing up to the point of washing his hands and saying he is not responsible for any work performed by his employer. By holding the position of QC or QA, he has the responsibility of ensuring the contractor does what is required by documenting any nonconformance and bring it to management's attention. If management fails to follow the proper protocol he has an obligation to kick it up the ladder. His responsibility ceases when he resign the position.

The AI should work with the contractor's QC to ensure the requirements of the quality control manual are met as well as the applicable code requirements. While the AI may not be obligated to provide the contractor's QC with insight regarding the intricacies of the applicable codes, it has been my experience most are more than willing to share their knowledge of ASME and NBIC requirements. It is difficult to conceive of a situation where the AI would permit the contractor to knowingly violate a code requirement. It simply isn't in their best interest or their employer's best interest (the Authorized Inspection Agency) to do so.

Clearly we do not have all the facts or the timeline associated with this project. As is usually the case we are fed bits and pieces of information as judged suitable and relevant by the individual posting. I am waiting the Paul Harvey moment when someone says, "And now for the rest of the story."

This isn't the first time a CWI has found himself in the position where he runs into a brick wall. My standard advice is to assess one's career very carefully. There are times when the CWI (or anyone finding themselves in a similar position) has to pack their bags and move on if they are placed in a position where they cannot do their job or their sense of ethics are compromised.

Best regards - Al

I dug around my archives and found this in my copy of the NBIC:
"The Owner-User Inspection Organization. An Inspector employed by an Owner-User Inspection Organization may authorize and accept work only on pressure retaining items owner/used by the company."

I also thought there was a weasel word or two pertaining to miniature boilers where the manufacturer could employ their own AI, but I have nothing handy to back that up. I could be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time I managed to put my foot where it shouldn't be.

Best regards -Al