Re-inspection of pressure vessel materials

The standard procedure is to conduct a re-inspection first, and only after it passes can the material be released. But in this special case where all the containers have been welded, it is not impossible to conduct a re-inspection; if the re-inspection is successful, then there will be no problem. However, containers that fail the re-inspection must be scrapped.

If the retest is successful, but someone suggests changing the retest date to before the material cutting date, is that possible? If it isn’t changed, will it meet the relevant requirements?

In fact, this is a risk control issue related to internal system management; in principle, container manufacturing should take place only after the materials have passed re-inspection. In special circumstances (such as an urgent deadline), it is possible to deviate from these rules, but there is a risk that the materials may fail the re-inspection. As for the retesting date, if it is changed, that would also constitute fraud; it’s better not to change it. Whether it’s during inspection or in future renewal reviews, there’s no problem being honest.

Well, first of all, one must be responsible for oneself and do what needs to be done; otherwise, one shouldn’t do it, unless given explicit permission； Second, the standard clearly specifies that re-inspection, material cutting, and manufacturing must be carried out in sequence; there is definitely a order to the dates. If you don’t change these dates, inspections will likely reveal this issue, leading to a whole bunch of problems. . . So, it’s enough to identify the problem; otherwise, you’ll keep running into issues and needing a basis for them. How could the regulatory requirements tell you to change the date?

It is sometimes normal for the analysis results to come out a bit late.

Generally, there is no problem, but one must tell the truth and not hide the facts. It is possible to carry out the necessary corrections in accordance with the regulations for dealing with non-conformities under the system, and the inspection officer will understand this; under no circumstances should the date for retesting the materials be changed.

Generally, there is no problem, but one must tell the truth and not hide the facts. It is possible to carry out the necessary corrections in accordance with the regulations for dealing with non-conformities under the system, and the inspection officer will understand this; under no circumstances should the date for retesting the materials be changed.

Don’t ask everyone this question...

I’m not very familiar with the production of pressure vessels, so I tried to look up the provisions related to materials and manufacturing in TSG 21 and GB150. On this matter, I agree with the opinion of the user who posted above; according to the regulations in these standards, it is only specified that the materials must meet the requirements of relevant standards, and manufacturers should develop quality plans based on these regulations and standards and implement them strictly. There is no separate mention of the need for retesting of materials. Points 5 of 150.4 specify the situations in which material retesting is required and that the results of such retesting must meet the relevant standards. In other words, neither of these two standards specifies when material re-inspection should take place. Nor do I find in any standards or regulations any indication that re-inspection is required before the material can be used in production. Of course, it’s possible that the regulations or standards I have reviewed are limited in scope, which is why I didn’t come across such a requirement. In summary, if retesting of the material is required, the manufacturer must carry out such retesting. The timing of this retesting falls under the scope of quality plan management, with no fixed rules in place; after all, it is the manufacturer who bears the losses and responsibilities if substandard materials are used. Of course, using the materials first and then conducting testing would be considered a case of failure to adhere to the quality plan. The implementation of the quality plan should also fall under the scope of supervision by the on-site inspectors; any mistakes in its implementation certainly require proper communication with them. Finally, it’s important to take care of yourself; once that is done, it shouldn’t be too difficult to handle everything else. Welcome, fellow sailors, to discuss together. If there are any shortcomings, please point them out. Thank you.