Pressure Equipment Directive and welding qualifications

[bruv]

I don't know if this is the most appropriate forum to post this question, but it's the best one to start with.

Our weld procedures are qualified by a 3rd Party (Lloyds Register), who countersign the PQR and WPQ documents. Our client is asking if we could submit countersigned WPSs to go with them. I don't have a problem with this (although we have never been asked this before). He has been reading PED Annex 1, section 3.1.2, which says

"operating procedures and qualifications must be approved by a competent third party”.

He goes on to say "Based on the data provided, the WPS is not third party approved for both materials identified."

Does the PQR not cover the WPS, as the parameters in both should be the same? What are your thoughts on this? Has anyone come across this before?

Thanks

 

[DVWE]

Just my $.02, but every time I have dealt with Lloyd's or any other PED registry, I always have the WPS, PQR, and WPQ signed by them. Most of my clients ask for all of those to be signed.

 

[Kiwi2671]

bruv,
The WPS and PQR must be reviewed, signed and stamped in tandem.

"Does the PQR not cover the WPS, as the parameters in both should be the same?"

No, the parameters will not be the same.
The PQR records the actual values and the WPS states the acceptable range of values.
The WPS must be checked to ensure all of the essential (and if required supplementary essential variables) are being complied with.
As an example, ASME IX QW 253 SMAW has 11 essential and 10 supplementary essential variables and your WPS cannot alter any of these without requalification of PQR. (Supplementary only comes into play if impact testing is required)
Regards,
Shane

 

[bruv]

Thanks for the info. It's just that our clients have never previously asked for countersigned WPSs.

@Kiwi2671:
Regarding my statement "Does the PQR not cover the WPS, as the parameters in both should be the same?"

I understand and agree with what you are saying.

I asked this question because I have recently had some WPS/PQR documents reviewed and rejected, because the parameters on the WPS had a broader range than those indicated on the PQR. The reason for rejection was that we could "not guarantee that a good weld would be achieved if we welded within WPS parameters but outside the PQR parameters". I tried to argue against this, but was shot down in flames by the reviewer.