can a welding inspector photostat my welding lic?

Date 10-22-2013 10:42

I wouldn't worry about it. An unscrupulous person that needs to steal a license probably doesn't have the weld skills to begin with.
Anyway, when your spider sense is going off, tell the inspector your reservations on photocopying your license. He might just jot down the number.

Question to the CWIs: Do you verify the Welder's license?

Tyrone

By welderbrent (*****)

Date 10-22-2013 12:42

On several occasions I have been known to ask for ID to validate the person's identity. From there it is rather difficult to verify that this was indeed the person who took the qualification exam that the WPQR is for. That is why, I personally, scan their ID and put a copy of it on the opposite side of the WPQR format that I use. Often, one outfit that sends me out on Welder Certifications, asks me to take the picture and then paste it in a passport type pic on the front upper right corner of the form. Between the two pics it is very difficult for someone else to use it.

I believe it is about impossible to actually verify most certs. You could call the agency/CWI/company that qualified them but chances are they can't tell you enough information to know if it is the same person.

As long as the name on ID matches the name on the cert that is all I can really do. From there...observe some of their first welds very close to see if you want to challenge their qualification and have them run another test coupon or be removed from the job. All through the contractor supervisor of course. The engineer if need be but have never had to go that far myself.

But, that's part of what is nice about going into the same shops many times through the years and being in a small community when not down in Phoenix. I know so many of them...go ahead, try to use the ID of someone else. OOPPSS, you aren't my brother-in-law! This is interesting. Yeah, good luck with that one.

Have a Great Day, Brent

By CWI7611 (**)

Date 10-22-2013 18:01

Any document can be counterfeited. It depends on how thorough the inspector wants to be. Checking the license number through the issuing agency to see if the name is correct and verify with a picture ID is always a good idea. I've heard the AWS will start issuing cards with the picture ID. Years ago an agency was issuing inspector's cards that very closely resembled the AWS card. I believe the AWS stopped that practice.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. The worst thing that may happen is you may have to verify your identity. Better than dealing with a total identity theft problem although this could be a step in that direction.

Bottom line is if someone wants to break the law, they will find a way to do it. Too many ways and too many talented people to counterfeit things.

By 803056

Date 10-22-2013 13:59 Edited 10-22-2013 14:31

I routinely photocopy/ scan the welder's performance test record when checking welder qualifications. The scan is included with the initial report sent to the Engineer, Owner, contractor, and the fabricator. There are many instances where my reports are forwarded to the building official having jurisdiction.

The welder's performance test record is reviewed at the request of the Engineer. Based on my comments and whether I discover any discrepancies, the welder qualification is accepted or rejected by the Engineer. Any discrepancies discovered are marked on the scanned copy so the reader can see what, if any, short comings are identified. The level of scrutiny performed is more than what can be done in the field in 30 seconds.

Some of the information I typically find deficient include:
- contractor fails to cosign the certification statement.
- name listed by the test report and the person doing the welding do not match,
- no WPS listed by the test report. AWS D1.1, ASME Section IX, etc. are not WPSs,
- Process improperly identified. MIG, Stick, Inner Shield, etc. are not welding processes per AWS A3.0. This is a legal technical document. If the individual completing the report doesn't know the technical terminology, there is no reason to expect a proper test was conducted,
- F number of the filler metal is recorded incorrectly,
- P number, M number, Group number incorrectly recorded,
- Multiple base metal specifications listed, e.g., A36 or A572. This is a record of what was used, not what can be used,
- Multiple filler metals listed or no classification of the filer metal recorded. Again, this is a record of what the welder used when he welded the test coupon,
- Incorrect filler metal specification listed,
- Mix of AWS and ASME designations. If the welder's qualification record is per AWS D1.1, there should not be a P number listed and the base metal should be listed by Table 3.1,
- Test coupons welder using GMAW-S cannot be evaluated by RT,
- Test report indicated the test assembly was back gouged when the applicable welding standard is AWS D1.1, and
- Test report indicates the welder is qualified per AWS D1.1 and an open root test was conducted using plate. There are no open root tests for plate depicted by AWS D1.1.All the standard tests are with backing with the exception of tubular connections and the T, K, and Y test.

The list is by no means complete, nor are the typical discrepancies listed by frequency.

The test record is a legal document. It is a technical document. The terminology use must be correct. As a legal document, it must be cosigned by the current employer.

You bet I photocopy the welder's test record or license. It is included in the inspection report so that if there is future litigation it can be shown the Engineer exercised due diligence and performed a proper review.

There will always be cheats that will attempt to submit falsified documentation. Those attempts are often foiled by a thorough review. Falsified documentation is fraud. When it is discovered, the welder and the contractor involved can be prosecuted. It is rare prosecution is the avenue taken unless someone is injured as a result of the contractor's activities, but I have been involved with projects where the welder is banned from the project and when deemed appropriate, the contractor involved is required to subcontract all the welding to a reputable contractor or the welds already completed are subject to further NDT.

Shopping around for the lowest possible price is often false economy. It can cost many times the original investment if the product delivered does not perform as expected. In this case the product is the welder qualification test record. If the individual tasked with qualifying the welder is not properly trained, does not fully understand how to qualify the welder, or is sloppy, the documents delivered are suspect. The costs of requalifying the welder because the documentation delivered is unacceptable is just a small fraction of the total costs that can be incurred by the contractor. It is plausible that any and all welds completed by the welder with suspect paperwork will be required to be removed and rewelded. Would anyone like to comment on the cost of excavating existing welds and rewelding the connections?

We settled a court case last year where no one was injured, yet the settlement was roughly 10 times what the steel contractor was paid for the project. The steel contractor had to pay for the initial investigation, removal of the affected work, replacing all the steel, interest paid by the client and the lost income that was attributed to the delay in completing the project, lawyers, and the steel contractor was banned from ever working at any of the facilities owned by my client. Needless to say, there is little likelihood the steel contractor involved will be invited to quote future work for the general contractor. The nail in the coffin used to bury the steel contractor was the fact that the laboratory that qualified the welders did not properly document the performance tests. The welding process used by the contractor was one that the welders were not qualified to use. While the welders were tested using GMAW, the performance test reports indicated the welders were qualified for both GMAW and FCAW. That isn't the case when qualifying to AWS D1.1.

Best regards - Al