Authorized Inspector Conflict of Interest 3

[evenpar]

Being new to the BPV industry I have much to learn and I question many things to aid me in that learning. I am wondering if it is a conflict of interest for an AI to perform code calcs on a vessel that he/she will ultimately be inspecting and signing off on as th AI?

 

[metengr]

Not for an ASME Section VIII Div 1 vessel. Div 2 and 3 yes.

 

[TJOrlowski]

Lots of AI's are former engineers/designers, or welding foremen, or have some other background working for a company directly involved with the design and manufacture of ASME pressure vessels and heat exchangers. That said:

For my money, there isn't enough oversight going on here. Even if the AI playing both sides of the fence is the best designer, with the most and best available formal training, and decades of on the job experience - humans make mistakes. It's the reason most QC manuals call for at least one person (a supervisor employed by the same company performing the calculations) to check the calculations and sign off on the calcuations before they are presented to the AI.

So what's essentially happening is the fabricator is reducing the work performed and checked by a minimum of three people, to a single person. Even if the equipment were Pressure Vessel / Tank / Heat Exchanger 101: something a student could design, I'd be extremely wary of this sort of practice.

-TJ Orlowski

 

[evenpar]

In light of the last comment let me add one more salient detail that mey help explain why I am concerned and have sought out advice.

After reveiwing an early set of the AI's calcs I understandably had questions. I arranged a meeting with the AI to go over the calcs with the view that he would be able to answer my questions. The meeting was very short as he was unable to answer any questions and stated he rarely if ever looked at the actual calculations, but just made sure the software hadn't flagged anything. It was clear he had limited understanding of the formulas.

Additionally, now that I have a little more experience and have been reviewing this more critically, his code calcs are, of course, only as good as the design data he is given. Of recent concern is that external nozzles loads are never considered due to the fact that he is never given any. A current project potentially has considerable external loads.

 

[metengr]

evenpar;
The more information you provide, the deeper the hole. This is a bad situation.

 

[evenpar]

metengr,

One the one hand I am glad to hear your assessment in the sense that my concerns seem justified. The mgmt of the firm is well aware of the situation (since they arranged things to be this way long before I started work for them) and are unlikely to listen to my concerns. Any advice on how to handle? Who to contact? I am worried someone is going to eventually get hurt.

 

[metengr]

evenpar;
What I would consider is to contact the ASME BOILER & PRESSURE VESSEL ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE via email through ASME.org/Codes and Standards. Your concerns will be taken quite seriously and an audit team will be dispatched to meet with the stamp holder.

 

[vpl]

evenpar,

I'd recommend starting with the website for the state/province/ locality where you're located. A lot of those websites have links to let you report a problem. Some will also list phone numbers so you can talk to someone directly.

Patricia Lougheed

******

Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.

 

[jamesl]

Calculation is the responsibility of the manufacturer. UG-91 clearly states that an inspector shall not be in the employ of the Manufacturer. In this case, the manufacturer got the calculation from the firm who paid the inspector for the calculation. Although the manufacturer did not pay the inspector directly, it must have given the firm a pricing reduction for using their calcs, therefore paid for the calcuation indirectly. I think this act is a code violation.

 

[SnTMan]

The more you stir it, the worse it smells.

 

[TJOrlowski]

{The Inspector} just made sure the program hadn't flagged anything...

And this is an Inspector holding a current commission from the NBBI?! How does he know the program is programmed correctly? Does the program take into consideration the requirements for Impacts, PWHT, or extra LP/RT/MP; as are often required by UCS, UHA, UNF etc, but not necessarily required for section UG mechanical calculations?

I know of several commercially available software packages that are really only to be used for mechanical calculations. When used, the job needs to be thoroughly looked at to make sure nozzles or openings aren't too close together (for Code), PWHT isn't required, Impacts aren't required, RT/UT/MP/LP isn't required, etc.

I've also seen commercial calculation software (more than one, and on more than one occasion) perform the calculations incorrectly (incorrect order of operations, subtract corrosion allowance instead of adding). Every package has a disclaimer that should be taken seriously: that the software cannot (and should not) replace an experienced and properly trained designer.

And it doesn't matter if the software is a "household name." The software is also written by humans, who can make mistakes. With every new release or update, commercial software needs to be re-validated.

These are things that the AI should be making sure the fabricator ISN'T doing, not things he's doing himself.

-TJ Orlowski

 

[Guest102023]

TJOrlowski,

Excellent comments about a problem that is as widespread as the reliance on engineering software. I was stunned by the AI's comment that " ... he rarely if ever looked at the actual calculations, but just made sure the software hadn't flagged anything." Does he know that such software is just a high-poered calculator, not something that actually DESIGNS the vessel? The appropriate authority needs to come down on him very hard.

The bright young sparks on Wall Street that wrote financial software and then sat back and watched an entire economy implode had the same attitude.

Advice to Evenpar: report this, but CYA (Cover Your Donkey). There is no percentage in whistle-blowing, especially when it embarrasses managers.

 

[evenpar]

Brimstoner/TJ,

I feel much the same regarding canned software. Guess it was due to how I was trained.

As far as percentages are concerned it's looks like a zero net sum game at this point. I was fired yesterday for "stirring the pot" by the individual who is at the heart of this and many other unethical and unprofessional issues.

Hope the good guys win every once in a while. Thanks for all your interest and comments.

 

[moltenmetal]

Wow, that SUCKS, evenpar!

I guess you're now free to complain to the National Board and to ASME, which you should do forthwith before someone gets hurt by the incompetence and conflict of interest you've uncovered. At this point, you're no longer at the risk of losing your job...

Best of luck finding more scrupulous employers in future!

 

[Mr168]

As much as I hate to say it, you may want to speak with a lawyer and see if the Whistleblower laws are in effect here. To fire someone on the basis of safety-related concerns is suspect at best.

 

[Guest102023]

evenpar,

Those of us who are old school enough were educated at a time when we could see how the sausage was made, so to speak. New grads today start with the finished product and assume it will take care of everything.

'Garbage in, garbage out' is an expression you don't hear much anymore, but it is more true than ever before.

 

[Guest102023]

evenpar,

Been there, done that (the being fired thing). I may be financially poorer, but my outlook has never been better know that I don't have to report every morning to a dysfunctional, corrupt working environment that follows the Enron management model. I am picking off clients one by one as my ex-employer repeatedly messes up while screwing them over ...

 

[evenpar]

I thought I would give an update to those of you who showed interest in this and offered your advice. Since the specific concern I originally began this thread about what was, in reality, a subset of a larger problem of ethics, professionalism, and legality within the company, and since the company is licensed by the state to do business as an engineering company, I took my larger concerns to the state engineering board.

To be brief, the state requires that to be licensed a company must have a fulltime registered P.E. who is in responsible charge of the engineering activities. While the company does have a P.E. on staff, he is neither full time nor is he in responsible charge. I worked on many projects that he had no involvement with what so ever. The head of the company, who is not an engineer, is in fact in charge of engineering activities and is technically "challenged". I corrected many of his deficient and sometimes unsafe designs. Additonally, there were instances of fraud, plan stamping, and use of pirated design software, all perpetrated by this individual.

I met with a board investigator and discussed the numerous instances of violations of the law and provided evidence to back my claims up. The investigator told me at the time he would look into the situation but cautioned me that these things can take some time. That was 5 months ago. I followed up with the investigator a couple of times and was told that they were waiting on replies from the company.

Yesterday I followed up again and he told me that he had merely asked the company if the PE was in charge, the company replied yes, and that was enough for him. I was flabergasted!! No investigation was ever done.

My faith in our system of checks and balances has been severely rocked. We have in this state a company that, sooner of later, is going to hurt someone due to poor quality engineering, and the people who are employed to help insure things like this don't happen do nothing. It is a sad day for the engineering profession and the many good and ethical engineers who make that community up.

Forgive me if I have strayed from the purpose of this forum. Perhaps I just need to vent to some people of integrity.

 

[bcguy]

evenpar;

I think you would have gotten much more satisfaction if you reported this to ASME and the National Board, as suggested in the begining of this thread.

Best Regards

 

[GenB]

I see it clear. But in the eyes of the ASME and the National Board the Manufacturer is responsible for the design and calculations. If The AI performed calcs to the Eng Firm may be unethical but not illegal.
If the manufacturer has an "Engineer" as its QCManual calls it, who in time review the calculations submitted by the Engineering firm, everyone is happy, then the ASME and the National Board are happy.
Now if the Manufacture locks of its "Engineer", then it can get nailed. The AI may be in trouble with the National Board only because he knowingly he is playing both sides. not because his or her moonlighting to the Eng Firm.
Genblr