How to revise TSG R1001-2008 \"Rules for Permitting the Design of Pressure Vessels and Pressure Pipelines\"?
Thread Content
In accordance with the requirements of the special letter from the Quality Inspection Office [2017] No. 1336, the TSG R1001-2008 \"Rules for Permitting the Design of Pressure Vessels and Pressure Pipelines\" needs to be revised. Should we practitioners also express our own opinions? Are these 3 questions worth discussing? TSG R1001-2008 \"Rules for Licensing the Design of Pressure Vessels and Pressure Pipelines\" Appendix D – Basic Requirements for Personnel at Various Levels in the Designing Unit. D1: Technical leader of the designing unit…… shall possess professional knowledge related to pressure vessels or pressure pipelines, be familiar with relevant regulations, safety technical specifications, and standards, and be able to make correct decisions regarding major technical issues. 【Q1】When a design unit applies for certification or renewal of its certification, should the technical supervisor of the design unit be assessed to determine whether they meet the basic requirements? D2: Personnel approved for pressure vessel design – 6) Must hold a senior technical title. D3: Reviewers – 5) Must hold a technical title at or above the intermediate level. D3: Verifiers – 5) Must hold a technical title at or above the junior level. [Q2] Since the qualification certificates for more specialized pressure vessel designers have been abolished, and technical titles at different levels seem to have little relevance to pressure vessel design, should these restrictions also be removed? 【Q3】Is it more reasonable to remove the qualification restrictions on designers and strengthen third-party security reviews of design documents? Will suspending a company’s design and manufacturing qualifications after failing the safety review three times in a row, and conducting a re-evaluation of its eligibility, enable such companies to be more self-disciplined?
I wonder if the design license is still in effect?
The unit design license should be retained.
The technical head of a unit is now mostly held in an administrative position, and there indeed should be an evaluation process to ensure their competence. Professional titles are not necessary to indicate one’s competence; restrictions based on professional titles should be removed.
It remains uncertain whether to retain the unit design license; official documents are awaited.
Whether it is a design institute or a manufacturing plant, they should be treated equally; those that meet the requirements should be granted the necessary qualifications.
Whether it is a design institute or a manufacturing plant, they should be treated equally; those that meet the requirements should be granted the necessary qualifications.
This post was last edited by Pinocchio on 2017-11-22 at 12:18. Regarding manufacturing units, I think the design and manufacturing licenses should be combined, rather than simply removing the design license for those manufacturing units. We currently have a quality manual for pressure vessel design and a quality manual for manufacturing; they can definitely be combined into one manual.
It’s just that many small businesses currently do not have the necessary design qualifications; if they were required to obtain such certifications as well, many of them might go out of business.
Manufacturing plants that lack design capabilities can indicate this in their manufacturing certificate if they believe it is not necessary to have such capabilities; as a result, the review of those plants’ design skills can be skipped when renewing the certificate.