“Burnout” occurred when the double-seam fusion welder got stuck as it welded (a stop at
a small crease or at times going up a slope) followed by the welder sitting in one spot for a short time causing a burn hole in the LLDPE. The welder continues from that point onward once the situation is corrected, but the LLDPE team comes back in and patches the area in accordance with the contract documents using LLDPE patch and extrusion welder. The extrusion weld area is “vac box” tested to ensure a tight repair. The question is whether these items should be tracked as simply a repair (as identified on a repair log) because a burnout may be considered by some as a common installation repair or if it warrants a non-compliance identification along with a repair log.
Jeff | New York
The issues of burnouts, blemishes, fish-eyes, waves, etc., are often asked, particularly when
such anomalies become “defects.” Corrective actions should be clearly outlined in the CQA document and be available to installers before the bid process itself.
That said, your question (which I have never had before) is slightly different and reflects
on the reporting process rather than the repair action. An extremely unofficial answer from my non-regulatory position is that a burnout is a common installation repair and should be identified as such.
Bob Koerner | GMA Techline