KEA Inspection`s Pros/Cons

Summary of Pressure Vessel Inspection Quality

The inspection quality of pressure vessels can be summarized as follows:

• Design Quality: Compliance with design standards such as KEA, KGS, KOSHA, ASME, PED, and others

• Material Quality: Use of certified materials

• Welding Quality: Use of qualified WPS/PQR and work performed by certified welders

• Nondestructive Testing (NDT) Quality: Accurate and appropriate execution of RT, UT, PT, MT, etc.

• Final Inspection and Testing: Hydrostatic test, leak test, trial operation, etc.

• Quality Documentation and Traceability: Accuracy of MDR (Manufacturer’s Data Report) and inspection records

  
  

Inspection quality for pressure vessels refers to the systematic management and execution of the entire process—from design and manufacturing to inspection and documentation—in accordance with international standards.

Characteristics of KEA Inspection and Pros/Cons of Frequent Inspector Changes

A key feature of KEA (Korea Energy Agency) inspections is that inspectors are randomly assigned by KEA headquarters, which can result in frequent changes of inspectors. The advantages and disadvantages of this approach are outlined below:

Advantages

1. Diverse Perspectives in Evaluation

   When inspectors change, they may review equipment and documentation from different viewpoints based on their own standards and experience, potentially uncovering hidden issues or overlooked items.

2. Minimization of Subjective Judgments

   Frequent changes help avoid biased decisions or habitual approvals that may arise when a single inspector handles all inspections.

3. Maintaining Focus and Rigor by the Manufacturer

   Due to inspector changes, manufacturers must thoroughly prepare for every inspection, leading to stricter quality control and documentation management.

4. Verification of Internal Quality Assurance Processes

   If inspections proceed without issues despite frequent inspector changes, it serves as evidence that the manufacturer’s internal quality system is stable and reliable.

5. Improved Credibility of the Certification Body

   Involvement of various inspectors contributes to the transparency and objectivity of the inspection agency.

   
   

Disadvantages

1. On-site Confusion Due to Differences in Interpretation of Standards

2. Lack of Continuity in Inspection

   (e.g., follow-up on previous inspector’s comments may be omitted)

3. Difficulty in Building Trust

   (e.g., the need to explain everything from the beginning each time)