How would one go about correcting WPQs with errors? We have some ASME WPQs that are two years old and reflect D1.1 qualification ranges.
One example is WPQ for a 1.0 inch plate by qualified by radiaography. The the cert in question gives the range as 1/8 inch to unlimited. That is a D1.1 range,the thickness range of 2.0 inches as listed in QW-451.1 applies. Part of the problem is that someone tried to use D1.1 WPQR forms to record ASME variables. Errors occured from cut and paste problems, lack of QA involvement in reviewing new WPQs, and just plain lost in tranlation. What is the best approach to correcting these?
If it was me, I would draw a single line through the error, write the correct value in and sign & date the correction.
It may wind up being a lot of work. If that's the case it may be better to develop a correct WPQ record and attach the correct version to each existing WPQ with a standard statement to this effect: This WPQ is revised to reflect accurate thickness (or diameter) limitations. The original WPQ contained inaccurate information. The actual test performed is valid, as documented on the original WPQ. However, the welder allowable limits are as indicated on this document.
As long as your statement is technically correct and clear to whoever may be reading it, you shouldn't have any trouble. Try to make it as "stand alone" as possible (ie - no need to refer to other documents that are not attached).
Good luck,
CHarles
Thanks!! The waters not as deep now. I like the approach of attaching a corrected WPQ with the stand alone statement. I don't know how often something like this ocurs in other facilities. Minor stuff is expected. But every WPQ on file? It was very preventable and it still happened. Just goes to show, a lack of involvement then, guarantees involvement now.
Doesn't 1" qualify for unlimited ? Maybe my mind is going ? Was that recently changed or have I been wrong for years?
Gerald
Gerald: Your mind is not going, mine is. Sorry I Left out some of the other info for this example. In this instance it is a two process plate. GTAW root and SMAW balance. Both processes were qualifed as 1/8 to unlimited. The GTAW was not 1/2" or three layers. Also I used the wrong table. QW-452.1(b) applies. The SMAW would be max to be welded, but the GTAW would not.
WHEW ! I just looked it up myself.
Have a good day
GA
After I had accepted my position here at our company, I found myself in a similar situation and resorted to asking the same question here in the forum. I received the same advice of striking through and correcting the error and initialing with a date. This material has since been reviewed by several approval submittals over the years and no one has yet to question any of this since. I take that to be "no news is good news".
John Wright
Well we ironed this out. Looked for the most audit proof solution.
1. No WPQ had ever been signed by a company representative.
2. No WPQ had ever been reviewed by QA.
3. The present management did not feel comfortable signing for a test two to three years old.
4. This was compounded by the fact that, not only were the qualification ranges incorrect but, the actual values were not recorded (i.e. deposited weld thickness, pipe dia but no sch. or wall thickness etc...).
5. Management took it in the shorts (and pocket book). Re-qualifications for all! Ten welders, taking five welding tests each. Takes each welder about a day and a half to complete.
6. There's a lesson here!
Thanks to all for your input.
Regards Donnie Mann
Forum
