InspectionFiles90
Petroleum
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?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations cowski on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Certification of U1A by the Authorized Inspector 2
- Thread starter InspectionFiles90
- Start date
- Status
-
1
- #2
Yes.
NB-263, Part 3, RN-2.2 states that the AI is responsible for the correctness of the MAnufacturer's Data Report...
NB-263, Part 3, RN-2.2 states that the AI is responsible for the correctness of the MAnufacturer's Data Report...
-
1
- #3
- Thread starter
- #4
InspectionFiles90
Petroleum
Thanks for your comments; with some context, might I ask for additional input?
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.
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.
Copy the datashets and send to the national board . it make trigger on investigation of the shop and the inspector will also hit the AIA for not training their inspectors when they are suppose to. What this shop has is a sloppy QCM and ,Signing Inspector----
As soon as the data sheet is received by you, immediately do not accept the vessel until the data sheet is fixed. Do not pay the mfr and some one will jump to fix it.
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.
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.
InspectionFiles, I feel your pain. Been there, done that.
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".
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".
- Thread starter
- #9
InspectionFiles90
Petroleum
Thank you gentlemen for the advise. I have contact information for the Inspector Supervisor and will contact him with examples of the Data Report issues. I appreciate the input.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Locked
- Solved