Vessel inspection

Date 01-17-2006 04:25

Shane,

Assuming there are no inspection requirements provided, it may be appropriate to examine the welds for evidence of "significant" fabrication or service related indications, and look for evidence of pitting, corrosion, leaks, cracking, general base metal thinning, insulation damage, support damage, etc. If they ask for a written report, be sure to note that no inspection standard was provided and your examination is only to detect gross visual evidence of degradation.

By chall

Date 01-18-2006 15:27

Depending on the state or local laws in your area, this may in fact be a "Pressure Vessel". If it is, it may require more of an inspection than just VT of the welds. It may require examination of the safety valve and it may also need a wall thickness study. Normally assignment of how to inspect a "pressure vessel" is done by the owner's Inservice Inspector.

You should ask the owner how old the tank is and if there is a drawing available (many times design criteria are listed on drawings). I would also suggest going to the state website associated with boilers and pressure vessels (usually on the Department of Labor site) and see if you can find out any info about "existing" vessels.

This seems a bit cynical, but if you inspect a vessel and provide a report without knowing how the report will be used, it may lead to problems down the line. You don't want someone using your report for something beyond your control without knowing as many details as possible.

Charles.

By S.E.N.S.E (*)

Date 01-18-2006 23:05

Thank you all for the insight. I looked at the vessel and gave a generalized statement about the welds. I did not prepare a report because I thought of the same possible consequences down the road. All I did was look at them, and made it VERY clear that I have not received my certification yet so what I had to say about them had no real status as far as code goes. I have opted to steer clear of this until I have received confirmation on my certs. I did a little research and it is indeed a pressure vessel. It is brand new and has not been put into service yet. They have a liitle work to do to it before that happens. Again, thank you for the help, it is greatly appreciated.

Shane

By tito

Date 01-18-2006 23:29

I have a question regarding inspections and being a CWI. You stated earlier that you could not sign anything because you are awaiting your test results. I'm confused. Is it a rule that you cannot accept anything while awaiting your results. I am under the impression that being a CWI is a highly regarded status to acheive, but not necessarily required unless a code, spec, or contract states that welds shall be accepted by a CWI. Just curious.

By S.E.N.S.E (*)

Date 01-23-2006 22:39

Tito-
I was asked by my current employer to look at some welds on a vessel they had worked on. I did not accept any work from an outside source. I think it would be a jinx on my part to do so. I hate to think of what would happen if someone accepted inspection work only to find out later that they did not receive certification. Could be a great big can of worms legally. But just to clarify, I have not advertised myself as a CWI and I HAVE NOT accepted any jobs as a CWI. Hope this makes things crystal clear.

By tito

Date 01-23-2006 23:30

It makes more sense, kinda. Not to argue, or for you to think I'm challenging you - but you can inspect and accept welds without being a CWI. I would assume as long as you don't advertise being one and accepting anything under a fraudulent claim of being one, you should be fine. If your company worked on a pressure vessel and followed correct guidelines, under the quality control function all you would be doing is ensuring that it was done correctly. I guess all I am saying is that in order to inspect and accept a weld, there is no need for any type of certification unless the customer, governing agency, employer...etc., states that. As I said, not arguing, just discussing.

By S.E.N.S.E (*)

Date 01-24-2006 02:27

I totally agree. I realize you are not arguing, I hope you did not think I was trying to argue. As stated before, it was within my company and I was always in charge of quality control, I was basically asking if the vessel that was under vacuum was indeed a "pressure vessel". I do appreciate the input though, I will definitely word things a little different in the future as not to confuse people. Sorry if I misled anyone.