Certification of U1A by the Authorized Inspector
Certification of U1A by the Authorized Inspector
(OP)
Is it the intention of the National Board that the Authorized Inspector is assuring the accuracy of the document when he signs / certifies the U1A on a newly manufactured vessel?





RE: Certification of U1A by the Authorized Inspector
NB-263, Part 3, RN-2.2 states that the AI is responsible for the correctness of the MAnufacturer's Data Report...
http://www.nationalboard.org/SiteDocuments/Commiss...
RE: Certification of U1A by the Authorized Inspector
RE: Certification of U1A by the Authorized Inspector
The reality of the current circumstance is that Data Reports have not been reviewed critically by either the Manufacturer's representative or the AI before being certified.
"Clerical" errors such as the report noting a Vertical vessel that is actually Horizontal or stating on the report that the Yr. Built is 2011 while the identification plate attached to the vessel shows 2010 as the year it was made, are glaring to me but not noticed by others. Other less obvious but more crucial errors include incorrect nozzle sizes, counts and wall thicknesses are common as well as incorrectly stated weld efficiencies. My consternation is due mostly to one particular manufacturer at one particular location. Some errors date back several years, some are current. The majority of U1A's I have seen from this outfit have at least one error- clerical or other. The manufacturer is willing to correct and reissue these U1A's, but it's time consuming and progress is limited. Because it has been such a persistent problem (there are scores of U1A's in dispute), the root issue (correctness of data/ Mfg. QC), does not seem to have been addressed.
I am working as a third party API 510 for an Owner who themselves have a poor Specification/ Purchasing/ Receiving/ QA program and I feel vulnerable being in the middle between a weak Corporate QA and a weak Manufacturer/ AI. I have suggested to my manager buying from a better supplier might be beneficial, but I do not believe the Owner is going to change to a stronger vendor. So in an attempt to improve the current supplier, what might I do to press for a resolution?
I see this situation as an opportunity to serve and improve my employer, not a chance to alienate a Manufacturer. Then again, I do not want to let this linger and compromise my reputation or diminish my peers. Should I work subtly to achieve a change or is it appropriate to make a reporting to the National Board? Might I contact the insurance underwriter? I don't know the implications.
RE: Certification of U1A by the Authorized Inspector
RE: Certification of U1A by the Authorized Inspector
Hey I have gone to fix a few data reports, we all make unwanted mistakes but when it get to you and you have to spend time satisfy I g the N,B, and a customer, the nest time you will try not to make any mistakes. Regards.
RE: Certification of U1A by the Authorized Inspector
Sending your data to the National Board is the "Nuclear Option". It will cause a major investigation and large ammounts of feces will impact the impeller. When that happens, there is always enough feces to cover everybody - inclusing you.
If it was me, I would call the Insurance firm that supplies the AI and talk to the regional supervisor [or a little higher], and email him some examples of the shoddy work. Just the examples, without comments other than the 'verbals' over the phone. Most likely, that supervisor will bend over backwards to correct the situation to both of your satisfactions, without a NBIC audit/investigation. And if this doesn't produce good results, you are justified to "go nuclear".
RE: Certification of U1A by the Authorized Inspector
RE: Certification of U1A by the Authorized Inspector
RE: Certification of U1A by the Authorized Inspector
Regards,
Mike