Pressure Vessel National Board Number3/31/2021
Its the more complicated vessels where I find the problems from the original manufacturer.As a consultant I have encountered on a number of occasions vessels that were Code stamped, but not registered at the NB.I never took the opportunity to verify the correctness of his statement.
Considering the number of Code stamped vessels that are not registered with the NB, his statement seems plausible. We have found the local jurisdiction is far easier to deal with if we intend to resister the vessels. On a more important note the access to Data Reports of registered Code objects is INVALUABLE to anyone who will need to repair the equipment in the future. We have found owners are terrible custodians of the original Data Report. BJaffa. BJaffa is also correct in that there are many benefits to having the equipment registered with the NB, especially when it comes to documentation for future repairsalterations or when selling the equipment. About 10 years back, we had purchased few Vessels form a Code shop for a Client. We had specified requirement of NB registration on these Vessels. After delivering the Vessels, and prior to furnishing U-1 form, Vendor had filed for Bankruptcy. We tried very hard for a few weeks, but could not get a copy of U-1 form from the Vendor, because they were in disarray. Without NB registration, we probably would have to send the bankrupt Vendor a Legal notice. Pressure Vessel National Board Number Code As TheAn ASME stamp states it was constructed to code as the code existed at the time of original construction. The NB stamp says yep, it fersure was because one of our inspectors watched it happen and our field auditors ensure they maintain the ability to do as the ASME code dictates. So inpractice, the fabricator can claim it was built to ASME and stamp it so, but without the NB stamp, who really knows. Thats why jurisdictions who are serious about pressure vessel safety demand both stamps. I can place a USDA Select tattoo on my wifes butt, but that dont mean she really is. After re-reading and re-reading the earlier post about this issue, I believe that the NB reference must be in regards to in-service vessels. I believe that the manufacturer really believes that the Code requirements were met. But, we all make mistakes or misinterpretations (especially about the dreaded UW-11(a)(5)(b) joint efficiency issue). The signature of the AI on the data report is also reassuring, but I never forget that the the signature only means that to be best of my knowledge the vessel complies with the Code. I am in no way a skeptic about the system as I find that it usually work well, especially for the basic types of vessels.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |