Boiler inspectors Qualifications

[nimbus]

Folks,
I thought that I would put this post up in order to gauge the degree of feeling/concern for the level of actual boiler construction experience that boiler inspectors could reasonably be expected to have.

In the instance that prompted this post, the choice of a new inspector was predicated on the one criteria, that he had a ‘very impressive CV in the military’ and has built a toy copper boiler with a capacity of about half a bottle of good red!!

Now I would be the last one to decry military experience, (my son-in-law was a senior officer now retired, in the US navy) However, as many of you would appreciate, who have actually done it! designing and/or building/silver brazing a “full size” working boiler requires careful thought and consideration.
Accordingly, I believe that this activity does not automatically fall into the above mentioned work-experience category by virtue of a disconnected CV.
Especially when there may well be other people available in a specific club who have actually had considerable experience in the design and/or building of boilers.
It has been argued to me that all a boiler inspector is required to do is to ensure that the boiler is built to the relevant code specifications, and that he has due regard for regulations and authority. The mind boggles!!!!

I am very much aware that in this post steam era, it is becoming increasingly difficult to identify suitable candidates for this most important office of the club. There is an increasing tendency to diesel outlines for obvious reasons, and the building of decent size copper boilers is rapidly decreasing. However I believe that it behooves the people in charge to recognise that experience should prevail over a glittering CV in a disconnected area of endeavor.
This of course now begs the question, in as much as the relevant national boiler executives require a minimum level of academic/intellectual achievement.

[alanstepney]

When I was testing boilers, it was the accepted practice that one of the testers should have a technical qualification (that related to the subject) and the other should have CONSIDERABLE experience of building boilers.
"Considerable", whilst not defined, is obviously far more than just building one boiler.

I dont believe the actual technical qualification needs to be anything too exotic. After all, in 90% perhaps 99% all the tester is doing is ensuring the boiler is the same as the published design.
In only a few cases will it be necessary to do any calculations, and they are fairly basic.
(In other words, it doesnt need a Chartered Engineer or someone with a PhD!)

[isc]

I'm not a steam man, but my expectation of an inspectors qualification would be a competent tradesman, with experiance of working with the required materials, ie., silver soldered copper, and welded steel pressure vessels. At another time I wondered if there was requirement for x-ray, and ultra sound testing, but I think that was thought to be a wee bit over the top. isc

[ettingtonliam]

Many years ago, I worked for British Gas on the big high pressure gas pipelines that were being installed all over the country. Obviously, the welding for this had to be the very highest standard (1400 psi test pressure), and BG employed a large number of welding inspectors to ensure that the standards were being met. It came as a surprise to me to discover that although the inspectors were themselves highly trained in weld inspection (mostly by BG in their training school at Killingworth), the preference was for them not to have been welders themselves. It was explained to me that the inspectors had to examine the welds and the x rays, and decide if the weld was acceptable or not. It was not for them to tell the welder how to do it, or to have any understanding of the problems the welder was having.
Frankly, I didn't agree with this approach, but as a fairly junior engineer, I didn't have any say in the matter. I've always thought that before you criticise something, you should have tried doing it yourself first. Not always possible I know. (I've criticised a lot of politicians in my time, but I've never been one-----'

Richard

[nimbus]

Hi Alan,
Your observation to wit "After all, in 90% perhaps 99% all the tester is doing is ensuring the boiler is the same as the published design" What worries me is than I am in the process of designing another Belpaire boiler ( my third large boiler); On what basis of judgement is this 'very qualified' new inspector, going to be able to call upon in evaluating the design or construction of this boiler if he has never done anything in this area in his life and does not have a "published Design" on which to rest his possibly uninformed judgements???

[Shawki Shlemon]

These are the qualifications of our boiler inspectors .

Attachments:

[alanstepney]

Dec 1, 2011 5:35:23 GMT nimbus said:

Hi Alan,
Your observation to wit "After all, in 90% perhaps 99% all the tester is doing is ensuring the boiler is the same as the published design" What worries me is than I am in the process of designing another Belpaire boiler ( my third large boiler); On what basis of judgement is this 'very qualified' new inspector, going to be able to call upon in evaluating the design or construction of this boiler if he has never done anything in this area in his life and does not have a "published Design" on which to rest his possibly uninformed judgements???

If it is a new design, then the boiler inspector would have to do all the calculations required (or verify them if the designer submitted them).
That is one of the reasons we had TWO people do the inspection, one of whom had engineering qualifications.
That doesnt mean the other didnt, just that at least one person must have qualifications.
At the same time, someone with the qualifications may not have experience of actually building boilers, so at least one person must have that experience.

[Boadicea]

Nimbus, I think it was unfortunate the new boiler inspector was referenced to the military - it depends what the experience was of course.

If you do not mind me saying so, after reading your posts on this, I feel you are suggesting the inspector may be less qualified to judge than you are. This may be so and need not be a problem, providing he can competently inspect the boiler to a known standard - I see no reason why he should have made one himself (this might be a radical concept for some but IMHO).

Ettingtonliam has described a regime where this idea was put into practice. Presumably it worked for the job described.

Alan has suggested the testing group should have a guru (Black Dalek!) to refer difficult issues to when the inspector is unsure or needs confirmation of his thoughts. This can work too, providing this is understood by all involved.

It will be interesting to see how you get on, but maybe you need to stand back a bit and let it happen.

[smallbrother]

Shawki - you were saying on my thread that you didn't like lots of regulations, but there you are operating quite happily with, wait for it, lots of regulations.

That said the Australian requirements look sensible to me.

At the end of the day though, if a vessel holds 1.5WP, passes the steam test, looks right, performs right, what are the odds on catastrophic failure I wonder?

Pete.

[nimbus]

Hi Bodecia,

I refer to your observation: "If you do not mind me saying so, after reading your posts on this, I feel you are suggesting the inspector may be less qualified to judge than you are."

Indeed I do not mind,
However, I am somewhat concerned that any connection with any branch of technology not connected with the subject; should have any relevance with the potential accreditation as a boiler inspector. After all, predicated on the these assumptions, it could be agued that a brain surgeon would be qualified to judge the accreditation of a heart surgeon by virtue of the fact that both are members of the ASMP.
The mind boggles!!

Indeed, I have put together a few lumps of copper, which serve to boil water to the required temperature. And in doing so I have discovered over the years, that it does require a degree of experience and pro-active experience.

[Shawki Shlemon]

Pete , I prefer as little as possible regulation but what is there we have to work with and accept . My point was that we try not to bring more in because when they come they stay .

[Laurie_B]

Just out of interest (hopefully!) some years ago I worked for one of the country's major insurers who carry out engineering inspections,mainly pressure systems and lifting tackle.

These major insurance companies do carry out initial training programmes for new surveyors/inspectors and subsequently carry out regular audits to ensure the inspections are being carried out in accordance with certain technical standards and current legislation.However,the training was more procedural and legalistic;the companies recruit staff,who they judge to already have a suitable engineering background.

Also,a day spent with the underwriting department was rather illuminating.When I asked why the premiums paid for boiler and other pressure vessel inspections seemed quite low,the answer was that the company's surveyors were expected to carry out their inspections,and take any action deemed necessary to "make sure that the client would never need to claim on his insurance policy"! Clearly,safety and meeting legal requirements were not the first priority to the underwriters!

When it comes to 'our' scale boilers,I don't think we need any where near such inspection regimes,but safety must be paramount.As has been stated before,it only needs one serious accident involving a member of the public and our days of self-regulation could be over.