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?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Authorized Inspector Conflict of Interest 3
- Thread starter evenpar
- Start date
Accuracy of the calculations are not one of the inspector(s) duties. The Inspector verifies the appropriate calculations and formulae have been applied dependent upon the design of the Stamped item.
Responsibility for design is always on the Certificate / Stamp holder.
FAQ731-376 A question properly stated is a question half solved.
Responsibility for design is always on the Certificate / Stamp holder.
FAQ731-376 A question properly stated is a question half solved.
- Thread starter
- #5
Let me clarify my question. Is it a conflict of interest if an AI, working essentially as a consultant, performs the code calculations on a vessel ( and is paid for his work) that he will be later inspecting and signing off on as the AI of record?
It appears that it would be. A good place to ask would be your local jurisdiction (or the applicable regulatory authorities).
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.
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.
The following is an excerpt from NB-236 "Rules for National Board Inservice and New Commissioned Inspectors"
RN-2.2 Authorized Inspector
Verify that the manufacturing organization has a valid ASME Certificate of Authorization and valid National Board Certificate of Authorization to register with the National Board.
Review design drawings and the traveler or process sheet in order to understand the scope of the intended work.
Review the method and extent of material defect repairs, and when found acceptable, allow initiation of such repairs.
Verify weld joint preparation will allow full penetration when full penetration welds are specified or required.
Verify the stamping, including the National Board stamping, is correct and the nameplate (if used) is properly attached.
Verify the manufacturing organization’s Representative has signed the Manufacturer’s Data Report and that it is correct before applying the date, his/her signature, National Board Commission number, and endorsement.
The responsibility for the design calculation is the company listed on the ASME Certificate. I would expect the AI would inform his/her supervisor regarding permission to do this activity. The company is taking on significant liability in the event the calculations are incorrect.
*
RN-2.2 Authorized Inspector
Verify that the manufacturing organization has a valid ASME Certificate of Authorization and valid National Board Certificate of Authorization to register with the National Board.
Review design drawings and the traveler or process sheet in order to understand the scope of the intended work.
Review the method and extent of material defect repairs, and when found acceptable, allow initiation of such repairs.
Verify weld joint preparation will allow full penetration when full penetration welds are specified or required.
Verify the stamping, including the National Board stamping, is correct and the nameplate (if used) is properly attached.
Verify the manufacturing organization’s Representative has signed the Manufacturer’s Data Report and that it is correct before applying the date, his/her signature, National Board Commission number, and endorsement.
The responsibility for the design calculation is the company listed on the ASME Certificate. I would expect the AI would inform his/her supervisor regarding permission to do this activity. The company is taking on significant liability in the event the calculations are incorrect.
*
Part 2
Interpretation Number: I-81-03
Codebook: Section I
Date: 27-JAN-81
Subject: Sections I, IV, and VIII, Duties of Authorized Inspectors
Question (1): As related to Section I, Section IV, and Section VIII - Division 1 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, is the Authorized Inspector responsible for the accuracy of the
calculations submitted for the finished Code component or part?
Question (2): What is the extent of the Authorized Inspector responsibility in reviewing design calculations that are made available by the Manufacturer [UG-80(c)(1)(b)] ?
Reply (1): No. It is the duty of the Authorized Inspector to determine to his own satisfaction that the necessary calculations were done in accordance with the Code. The responsibility for accuracy of the calculations lies with the Manufacturer.
Reply (2): The Authorized Inspector must verify that all required design calculations applicable to the construction have been made in accordance with the Code, and that any questions raised by
the Inspector are resolved. The Inspector is not required to check for accuracy of the calculations. The responsibility for accuracy of the calculations lies with the Manufacturer.
The foregoing Interpretation has been further considered, and the following corrected Question (2) sent to the inquirer.
Correction Issued: February 9, 1981
Question (2): What is the extent of Authorized Inspector responsibility in reviewing design
calculations that are made available by the Manufacturer [UG-90(c)(1)(b)]
Interpretation Number: I-81-03
Codebook: Section I
Date: 27-JAN-81
Subject: Sections I, IV, and VIII, Duties of Authorized Inspectors
Question (1): As related to Section I, Section IV, and Section VIII - Division 1 of the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, is the Authorized Inspector responsible for the accuracy of the
calculations submitted for the finished Code component or part?
Question (2): What is the extent of the Authorized Inspector responsibility in reviewing design calculations that are made available by the Manufacturer [UG-80(c)(1)(b)] ?
Reply (1): No. It is the duty of the Authorized Inspector to determine to his own satisfaction that the necessary calculations were done in accordance with the Code. The responsibility for accuracy of the calculations lies with the Manufacturer.
Reply (2): The Authorized Inspector must verify that all required design calculations applicable to the construction have been made in accordance with the Code, and that any questions raised by
the Inspector are resolved. The Inspector is not required to check for accuracy of the calculations. The responsibility for accuracy of the calculations lies with the Manufacturer.
The foregoing Interpretation has been further considered, and the following corrected Question (2) sent to the inquirer.
Correction Issued: February 9, 1981
Question (2): What is the extent of Authorized Inspector responsibility in reviewing design
calculations that are made available by the Manufacturer [UG-90(c)(1)(b)]
- Thread starter
- #10
metengr,
In reference to your "reply (1)" to question 2....and in light of an earlier reply, in your opinion, would it be professionally acceptable for an AI "to determine to his own satisfaction" proper calculations were done when he performed them in the first place in his role as a consultant?
I would add that the code calcs are never reviewed or signed by a P.E. I don't know if that is required.
I don't know if I am treading in a grey area here or if this much to do about nothing.
In reference to your "reply (1)" to question 2....and in light of an earlier reply, in your opinion, would it be professionally acceptable for an AI "to determine to his own satisfaction" proper calculations were done when he performed them in the first place in his role as a consultant?
I would add that the code calcs are never reviewed or signed by a P.E. I don't know if that is required.
I don't know if I am treading in a grey area here or if this much to do about nothing.
- Thread starter
- #12
evenpar;
If the AI had been directly involved with the calculations, the calculations should be reviewed and approved by another party. The AI can still perform a final review, but there should be a 3rd party oversight. Just use common sense!
If the AI had been directly involved with the calculations, the calculations should be reviewed and approved by another party. The AI can still perform a final review, but there should be a 3rd party oversight. Just use common sense!
- Thread starter
- #14
metengr,
I agree, however that is not what is happening.
The firm hires the AI (who is not a degreed engineer) to do the calcs, the firm designs the vessel (many times before the calcs are done), the firm subcontracts the vessel manufacture to a fabricator that uses the same AI that did the calcs. There is not a review of the calcs by a degreed engineer in the firm and there are no degreed engineers at the fabricator.
Am I placing to much emphasis on an experienced degreed engineer review at some point in the process?
I agree, however that is not what is happening.
The firm hires the AI (who is not a degreed engineer) to do the calcs, the firm designs the vessel (many times before the calcs are done), the firm subcontracts the vessel manufacture to a fabricator that uses the same AI that did the calcs. There is not a review of the calcs by a degreed engineer in the firm and there are no degreed engineers at the fabricator.
Am I placing to much emphasis on an experienced degreed engineer review at some point in the process?
Guest102023
Materials
Wow, I had not heard of an AI working both sides of the fence. Here in Canada the AI is normally a full-time employee of the provincial authority, and it would be highly inappropriate to be doing ANYBODY's calculations. Aside from violating the obvious principle of not checking one's own work, which has already been mentioned.
evenpar;
If there is no 3rd party oversight by an entity or individual with pressure vessel engineering expierence, this is a problem. There is significant risk of liability exposure to the design firm representative that is signing the ASME Form U-1. I would contact the firm employed by the AI and report it.
If there is no 3rd party oversight by an entity or individual with pressure vessel engineering expierence, this is a problem. There is significant risk of liability exposure to the design firm representative that is signing the ASME Form U-1. I would contact the firm employed by the AI and report it.
- Thread starter
- #18
The AI is working both sides of the fence. While not quite right, and not proper, and a conflict of interest...it is not illegal.
But the manufacturer should find someone else to do the calcs.
And for ASME Div. 1 vessels, there is no requirement of the manufacturer to have a degreed engineer to do the calculations, nor is there a requirement for a P.E. to prepare or review the calculations.
But the manufacturer should find someone else to do the calcs.
And for ASME Div. 1 vessels, there is no requirement of the manufacturer to have a degreed engineer to do the calculations, nor is there a requirement for a P.E. to prepare or review the calculations.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Locked
- Question