Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
wclark1238  
#1 Posted : 28 September 2010 10:40:53(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
wclark1238

I'm looking for some advice regarding training courses that are applicable for those who might need to fulfil the role of 'competent person' as it applies to the inspection of pressure systems. I've done a bit of a Google search but nothing has really jumped out at me.

Historically my company has performed WSEs but the (so called) competent person has left the business so I'm now trying to identify the criteria by which I can sensibly deem someone else in the business as being competent to interpret the findings of our engineers with regards to WSEs.

One of the HSE bits of info infers that there is some UKAS course or training that maybe applicable but I've failed to find anything there either.
ITER  
#2 Posted : 28 September 2010 13:12:27(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ITER

Read the Pressure Systems Safety Regulations (PSSR) approved code of practice.

It gives guidance on the relevant level of technical/engineering qualifications required to undertake such work.

Depends on the exact sisze of the system that you will be writing a WSE for/inspecting as to the level of qualifications - probably I Eng as a minimum.
bob youel  
#3 Posted : 29 September 2010 07:40:02(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
bob youel

You should manage the area via a 'competent' engineering type engineer with competence regards to the metalic structures of metals e.g. Fabrication engineer / Eng etc as already noted

This is not an 'attend a course' type of competence this is a professional area

In my opinion, we live in a country [the only one in the world that I know of!] that has a complete disrespect/disregard for proper professional engineering type engineers. Engineers of this type are looked down on at best if acknowledged at all!

When I was in Germany etc an engineer could book a table at a restaurant in the same way a doctor could - which is, in my experience, impossible in the UK





wclark1238  
#4 Posted : 29 September 2010 09:04:01(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
wclark1238

Thanks both - I've trawled through the ACOP and it looks like we may be able to meet the recommendations for competence. The only systems that we write WSEs for are classed as 'minor' systems so we only need to have someone qualified at incorporated engineer level with suitable knowledge of the systems, equipment and legislation. Our production manager can put ticks in all of those boxes so after a bit of a review of our procedures and paperwork we'll be back 'on track.'
Jim Tassell  
#5 Posted : 29 September 2010 18:03:15(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Jim Tassell

Just a couple of extra thoughts for you.

First, preparing the written scheme is one thing, performing the examination is another. Who is doing the latter? It's prudent to have them in the loop when drafting schemes. They may know of something critical about a particular bit of kit.

Second is one of independence. Any in-house competent person role is open to challenge on grounds of lack of objectivity and independence. In your case I suspect you have a good appreciation of engineering scrutiny and sign-offs but it's still worth considering with considerable care as the time you will be challenged is after something has gone wrong and the poor engineer's name is on the line (or the manslaughter charge sheet).
wclark1238  
#6 Posted : 30 September 2010 16:32:19(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
wclark1238

Jim Tassell wrote:
In your case I suspect you have a good appreciation of engineering scrutiny and sign-offs but it's still worth considering with considerable care as the time you will be challenged is after something has gone wrong and the poor engineer's name is on the line (or the manslaughter charge sheet).


And I thank you for that sobering thought! :-)

We have a handful of our field engineers who conduct the inspections in accordance with our standard procedure. Their findings are then reported to our office where results are collated and an (automated) report is generated, it is at this point that our competent person comes onto the scene as he/she reviews the reports and signs it off (or otherwise) and deals with any adverse findings etc.

The numbers acquired and observations by the site engineers are plugged into a spreadsheet and it spits out a pretty basic go or no go result but this is still all validated by the competent person who signs off the overall certificate/WSE.

This change in personnel has prompted a thorough review of the entire system and will result in some refresher training for the site engineers who conduct the inspections on site as I believe their may well be some inconsistencies in their methods etc. All in all it's probably been a positive thing for us because of the refocussing that has been provoked.
ITER  
#7 Posted : 30 September 2010 18:27:18(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
ITER

The risk of a pressure vessel failing is pretty low, provided it has been designed to reasonably modern standards AND is well maintained and inspected etc.

Current estimates are something like a 1 x 10^-5 probability per year.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.