- This topic has 13 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 6 years, 9 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Hello lads,
The company i work for is bringing in sub-con welders to help with the workload.
My question is – If the welders have been qualified to 1554.1 SP and have proof that they have be employed welding to 1554.1 every six months such as NDT reports, can they weld within the range of their qualification to our WPS's? or do they need to be qualified to our WPS?Thanks,
TiggerfaebiggarTiggerfaebigger,
There is so much ambiguity with this code that it is hard to respond to anything in 1554 Part 1 without someone having a different opinion.
WTIA Tech Note 11 Clause A4.12.2 states “All welders must qualify for each weld procedure to be used on the job by means of a macro test, unless they can demonstrate successful prior experience with that procedure (e.g. through NDE / NDT reports) ….”
In my opinion you have complied with that clause.
However, as I have noted previously in this forum if you allow any welders that are deemed “prequalified” to start work without a weld test you do so at your own risk / peril.
Regards,
BBI think you could potentially open a can of worms using tech note 11
it is not generally referenced in contracts or spec or for that matter AS1554.1 on these matters
AS1554.1 requires a macro initially then revalidation via NDT, Although the standard allows it revalidation by surface method is less than adequateAS1554.1 states if you change employment you have to re-qualify (in my opinion subby to one client and then the next is a change)
AS2980 is not employer specific, which allows you to get around the issue
Clause 5.1.3 (d)
it also talks about using an independent examiner so the qual is transferable
you can prolong it using volumetric NDT as long at
1.it is supervised
2. test coupons replicate those req by AS2980
3. it is deemed to comply with visual requirements of AS2980R
FlashPoint Taken BB, you are on the money with this one
and after review I have looked at AS1554.1-2004 and the new draft of 2010 and the note re Tech note 11 is in botha case in point is re the opening a can of worms, is the extract from Tech note 11 you have highlighted
“Tech Note 11 Clause A4.12.2 states “All welders must qualify for each weld procedure to be used on the job by means of a macro test, unless they can demonstrate successful prior experience with that procedure (e.g. through NDE / NDT reports) ….”
This does not reflect what is in AS 1554.1 so which takes precedents
If someone showed me a RT report for a GMAW butt and tried to use that as qualification, I would be less than impressed for obvious reasons
R
FlashBB
AS1554.1 and .5 are still in draft and should be released later this year, there are a few issues with AS3678/3679 that will affect the tables in the 1554’s hence their delay
I have been on WD-3 for 2 years but most of the work had been done before I arrived, I would love to see a few more direct users of AS1554’s involved in the development to iron some of these issues outTo get back to the question
to me as much as I think it comes with a degree of risk
if someone has a “relevant” as 1796 certificate they do not have to do any qualifications tests they are deemed qualified by means of certification, this also applies to AS2980 but there is a degree of confusion because they have lumped certification and qualification standards togetherR
FlashHi lads,
Thanks for the replies, it just goes to show that two lads cannot agree on the same thing which is a major problem with 1554.As for tech note 11, it explains the “easy stuff” but does not go into the main questions that all inspectors working in OZ are needing claification on. Can the the 1554 commitee be approached on such things?
BB, i left the last job because the the QA guy was using all the “grey areas” in 1554 and i did not feel comfortable in what he was doing, which is a shame.
Can i get through my prediciment by using their WPS which they are qualified to?
Thanks
TFB,
I think one of the main problems is because of all the grey areas in 1554 people have been tending to interpret various clauses the way they want – they then continue to steadfastly maintain their interpretation is correct because it is a bit embarrassing to admit you have been accepting / rejecting something for years based on false information.
I do not work with AS/NZS 1554 now and I intend to do everything in my power to ensure I never have to – I comment on this forum purely as an impartial / neutral observer.
Regards,
BBHi Flash and BB,
I just came across something interesting in WTIA tech note 11, page 34, clause A4.12.2, where it states:
“Welders contracted out by labour hire companies do not require re-qualification where labour hire company (their employer) maintains the welders qualification records and such records are made available to the contracting company”
Interesting don’t you think!!!
However going with my gut instinict and advice from this site and test them out!
ThanksI think we do agree, just slightly different versions, I think we would end up in the same place just get there differently
qualify the guys or use the certification with out qualification at your own risk
when in doubt follow the intent of the standard
the intent is -prove beyond reasonable doubt they can weld before letting them lose on the jobR
FlashGoing back to the original question
– sub contractors > self employed > change from job to job > employed by themselves > therefore have not changed employer –If they have evidence of complying to the relevant standard, with the process required, there is no need to re-qualify.
However, any “wise” company would make a weld test a condition of employment. It’s always good to have first hand proof that the welder in question can weld adequatley, and the quality of welding can be assessed before welds are completed on the job.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.