Icndt on harmonisation of Third Party NDT Personnel

2,590 views

Published on

Workshop on actual situation of Third Party Personnel Certification schemes

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
5 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,590
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
104
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
5
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Icndt on harmonisation of Third Party NDT Personnel

  1. 1. ICNDT Workshop on Harmonisation of Third-party NDT Personnel Certification to ISO9712 and Aligned Standards 17 WCNDT, Shanghai - Monday 27 October 2008 9.00 a.m. - 12.00 noon Friendship Room
  2. 2. Purpose <ul><li>The Workshop, lead by international panels of experts, will explore the following questions and is intended to deliver recommendations to Standards, Committees and Certification bodies and ICNDT: </li></ul><ul><li>What do industry, regulators, and NDT personnel need from third-party certification schemes? </li></ul><ul><li>What are the key differences between ISO9712, EN473 and CP106. Why do they exist? Are they really important? </li></ul><ul><li>How can these differences be resolved? By choosing a preferred alternative, by compromise, or by allowing options? </li></ul><ul><li>What Recommendations can we give now in our ICNDT Guide? </li></ul>
  3. 3. Agenda <ul><li>1. What do industry, regulators, NDT personnel need from third-party certification schemes? </li></ul><ul><li>Panel: John Zirnhelt - Representative of Service inspection companies </li></ul><ul><li>Mike Farley - Doosan Babcock - Manufacturer Representative </li></ul><ul><li>Dave Barnett - APCNDT </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Ron Nesbitt - ASNT representative </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>2. What are the key differences between ISO9712, EN473 and CP106. Why do they exist? Are they really important? </li></ul><ul><li>Panel: John Thompson, ICNDT WG1 Chairman </li></ul><ul><li>Les Dick APCNDT </li></ul><ul><li>Ron Nesbit, ASNT </li></ul><ul><li>3. How can these differences be resolved? By choosing a preferred alternative, by compromise, or by allowing options? </li></ul><ul><li>Panel: Dr Hatano, ISO TC 135 </li></ul><ul><li>Douglas Marshall, ICNDT/IAEA </li></ul><ul><li>4. Recommendations to Standards Committees, Certification Bodies and Users of third-party certification </li></ul><ul><li>Panel: Mike Farley </li></ul><ul><li>John Thompson </li></ul><ul><li>Dave Barnett </li></ul><ul><li>Douglas Marshall </li></ul><ul><li>5. Recommendations section for ICNDT Guide </li></ul>
  4. 4. Timetable <ul><li>9.05 – 9.30. </li></ul><ul><li>What do industry, regulators, NDT personnel need from third-party certification schemes? </li></ul><ul><li>9.30- 10.15. </li></ul><ul><li>What are the key differences between ISO9712, EN473 and CP106 and the referenced Training Syllabuses? Why do they exist? Are they really important? </li></ul><ul><li>10.30 -11.00 </li></ul><ul><li>How can these differences be resolved? By choosing a preferred alternative, by compromise, or by allowing options? </li></ul><ul><li>11.00 – 11.30 </li></ul><ul><li>Recommendations to Standards Committees, Certification Bodies and Users of third-party certification </li></ul><ul><li>11.30 – 12.00 </li></ul><ul><li> Recommendations section for ICNDT Guide </li></ul>
  5. 5. Industry view presented by Mike Farley, Doosan Babcock <ul><li>What do industry, regulators, NDT personnel need from third-party certification schemes? </li></ul>
  6. 6. Company update <ul><li>Doosan Babcock Energy Limited is a subsidiary of Doosan Heavy Industries and Construction of South Korea, part of the Doosan Group, and a market leader in gas, coal, nuclear power generation and desalination . Orders in 2007 totalled 7 Bn USD </li></ul><ul><li>The companies supply power plant and after market services (including ISI) worldwide including Europe, China, India, USA, South America, and the Middle East </li></ul><ul><li>Contracts are executed to ASME , European and other Codes and Standards </li></ul><ul><li>NDT personnel certification is required to both SNT-TC-1A and to third party standards to comply with customer’s requirements and when applicable the European Pressure Equipment Directive </li></ul>Nuclear Thermal Turbine & Generator Desalination Casting & Forging Construction
  7. 7. Globalisation of power plant projects <ul><li>Design, building and operation is globalised </li></ul><ul><li>Technology developed in one country is used all around the world </li></ul><ul><li>Safety, reliability and availability of power plant depends on the whole supply chain of companies and contractors each with their own NDT personnel </li></ul><ul><li>Industrial companies procure equipment and materials from wherever is most cost effective, increasingly from developing countries, using local NDT personnel working to the standards applicable to the specific contract </li></ul><ul><li>Construction may be by home personnel or by teams from third countries – normal in the Middle East, but now happening in USA and Europe </li></ul>750MW ASC Doosan Babcock boiler – Trimble County E.ON USA
  8. 8. Third party or in-company? <ul><li>Two approaches to personnel certification (third party and in-company) are already converging </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ASME allowing use of central certification within a company’s Written Practice </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Employer’s role emphasised in ISO 9712 and aligned Standards </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Best practice uses central certification within a company’s NDT Quality system but supplements this with internal training and examinations relating to the company’s products, equipment and procedures (whenever these are outside the scope of the central certification scheme) </li></ul></ul>
  9. 9. Duration, Content General theory exam General practical exam Specific theory exam Specific practical exam Employer Authorisation to work Training Experience Syllabus, Hours Difficulty of questions, Difficulty of Practical Examinations + + Employer has to rely on his knowledge of the syllabus, scope and difficulty of theory and practical examinations Does not care about precise hours of training or experience !! = Background, Education Industry view of third party certification standards Employer specific training In company experience Specific theory exam Specific practical exam Overall process described in company’s NDT Quality System (Written practice) checked/audited by external inspection authority (eg ASME, or Notified Body) Sees no significance in the minor differences between ISO9712, EN 473 and CP106 Very variable
  10. 10. Summary <ul><li>We are much more comfortable using Third party certification than In-company certification (both internally and for our supply chain) </li></ul><ul><li>We need </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Third party certification that we can rely on all around the world </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Certificates gained in one country need to be valid/recognised world-wide </li></ul></ul><ul><li>We do not see major differences between third party certificates in accordance with ISO9712, EN 473 or CP106 </li></ul><ul><li>We like the fact that PCN certificates comply with both ISO 9712 and EN473 and wish this to continue </li></ul><ul><li>Supply chain must properly fulfil their obligations as Employers </li></ul><ul><li>We need to rely on Accreditation of Certification Bodies and MRAs such as the EFNDT MRA because Doosan Babcock cannot audit every separate Certification Body and every company in our supply chain </li></ul>
  11. 11. Industry view by John Zirnhelt <ul><li>JZ: stated that he had around 35 years experience in ISI in Canada, and had been involved in the initial development and two revisions of 9712. His company employs ~2500 certificated technicians, 50% hold 2nd party, and 50% 3rd party through CGSB and PCN, and the company is dovetailing the 2nd and 3rd party approaches. </li></ul><ul><li>JZ went on to state that we need to impart sense of urgency – there is a growing shortage of NDT certificated personnel. We are using more advanced NDT on complex fabrications, and my company currently has 400 unfilled jobs for RT, UT and VT levels 2, and RT assistants. An ISI company needs to be credible; it needs a credible program in order to prove competence to clients. </li></ul><ul><li>There is a need to prove satisfactory completion of qualification examinations, which are the primary demonstration of competence. </li></ul><ul><li>People have differing learning rates, we cannot sensibly apply subjective criteria of training and experience duration – these are intangible. </li></ul><ul><li>Portability of qualifications is vital. We need to use foreign qualified workers, and have the certificates of Canadian qualified inspectors accepted wherever they are working. </li></ul><ul><li>Certification schemes need to be responsive to new technologies. Development periods of 5 – 10 years are no good. </li></ul><ul><li>We also need an economic system for recertification; this is problematic in Canada for geographical reasons. </li></ul>
  12. 12. Industry view – Ron Nesbitt <ul><li>Doing NDT since 1960, when there was no central certification until the ASNT L3 programme. Still exists. </li></ul><ul><li>In meantime, programmes popular in USA are 2nd party. Disadvantage is lack of central examination bank. </li></ul><ul><li>Another disadvantage is need for new exams on each change of employer. This is an advantage of 3rd party. </li></ul><ul><li>How does industry see 3rd party? Needs competent NDT personnel, but attempts to install 3rd party (in the USA) have stalled, except for Performance Demonstration in critical applications. System evolving. </li></ul><ul><li>Why CP106? Standards development committee charged by ASNT Board with development of standard aligned with ISO9712 – ended up with deviations due to differing national opinions. </li></ul>
  13. 13. Industry view- David Barnett <ul><li>Overview – IAEA/RCA agreement. </li></ul><ul><li>18,000 ’trained’ to 9712 in Indonesia over past few years. Keen to have a certification system to satisfy Russian requirements and in accordance with 9712. </li></ul><ul><li>Shortage of technicians; require mobility. Philippines, 75% certified evey year emigrate to get better paid jobs. </li></ul><ul><li>Most NDT in SE Asia use TC 1A. </li></ul><ul><li>Australia and New Zealand use 9712. Malaysia Institute adopting 9712 and will launch scheme next year. Goods manufactured and tested will be to 9712,. </li></ul><ul><li>Only top end of industry who specify what personnal qualifications are required. Majority use a 2nd party system; dont work to specs. </li></ul>
  14. 14. What do industry, regulators, NDT personnel need from third-party certification schemes? <ul><li>We need </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Third party certification that we can rely on all around the world </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Certificates gained in one country need to be valid/recognised world-wide </li></ul></ul><ul><li>We do not see major differences between third party certificates in accordance with ISO9712, EN 473 or CP106 </li></ul><ul><li>We like certificates that comply with both ISO 9712 and EN473 and wish this to continue </li></ul><ul><li>Supply chain must properly fulfil their obligations as Employers </li></ul><ul><li>We need to rely on Accreditation of Certification Bodies and MRAs such as the EFNDT MRA because industrial companies cannot audit every separate Certification Body and every company in their supply chains </li></ul>
  15. 15. A comparison of standards (highlighting key differences) Presented by John Thompson
  16. 16. A comparison of standards (highlighting key differences) Presented by John Thompson (Rev A, 2008-10-26)
  17. 17. Which Standards? <ul><li>ISO 9712 : 2005 (international) </li></ul><ul><li>ANSI-ASNT CP 106 : 2008 (national) </li></ul>
  18. 18. ANSI ASNT CP 106 : 2008 <ul><li>Based upon ISO 9712 : 2005 </li></ul><ul><li>Many differences and deviations, some explained in national explanatory notes, others not. </li></ul><ul><li>Example of “National explanatory note”: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In keeping with national practice, &quot;normative&quot; has been replaced with the term &quot;mandatory&quot; and &quot;informative&quot; has been replaced with &quot;non-mandatory“ </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. ANSI ASNT CP 106 Definitions <ul><li>There are several minor deviations from the ISO 9712 definitions </li></ul><ul><li>It is considered that the minor differences in definitions do not imply a lack of equivalence </li></ul>
  20. 20. AQB and AEC <ul><li>CP 106 appears to have ‘watered down’ the requirements for Authorized Qualifying Bodies and Authorised Examination Centres </li></ul><ul><li>AQB and AEC appear to have been allowed significant autonomy through delegation to AQB of some of the responsibilities assigned in ISO 9712 to the certification body </li></ul><ul><li>However, the CB is solely responsible for the decision on certification, as is required by ISO/IEC 17024 </li></ul>
  21. 21. Eligibility <ul><li>There are significant differences in the vision, training and experience criteria (though attention is clearly drawn to this in the national explanatory notes) </li></ul>
  22. 22. Examination Content <ul><li>The requirements of the two standards differ in what might be regarded as minor ways </li></ul><ul><li>Such as: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>30 versus 40 level 2 general questions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>time allowed 2 versus 3 minutes </li></ul></ul>
  23. 23. Examination Grading <ul><li>There is a lack of clarity in CP 106 concerning pass marks and grading because the standard states that these will be determined using nationally accepted ‘psychometric practices’ or principles </li></ul><ul><li>A similar lack of clarity exists for time allowed in practical examinations, also due to the use of ‘psychometric practices’ </li></ul>
  24. 24. Re-examination <ul><li>CP 106 appears to have retained the number of allowable retests of failed initial examination parts as ISO 9712 : 1999, i.e., only one retest is allowed, whereas ISO 9712 : 2005 allows two retests. </li></ul><ul><li>are re-examinations allowed for failed recertification examinations? CP 106 is unclear on this. </li></ul>
  25. 25. Partly completed examinations <ul><li>CP 106 recognises the validity of passes in specific written and practical examinations only for two years </li></ul><ul><li>Whereas ISO 9712 recognises the validity of all part passes for five years </li></ul>
  26. 26. Code of Ethics <ul><li>CP 106 requires the CB to develop a code of ethics (ISO 9712 does not) </li></ul><ul><li>It is implied that the code of ethics for Level 2 is different from that for Level 3 </li></ul><ul><li>It appears that the Level 1 is required to abide by the Level 2 Code of Ethics </li></ul>
  27. 27. Conclusions <ul><li>This presentation has not highlighted all of the differences between the referenced standards </li></ul><ul><li>And those differences that do exist are considered by the presenter to be relatively minor in nature </li></ul>
  28. 28. A comparison of the criteria in the latest revisions of EN 473 and ISO 9712 Presented by John Thompson
  29. 29. Revision Status <ul><li>ISO 9712 : 2005 </li></ul><ul><li>EN 473 : 2008 </li></ul><ul><li>Only the most significant differences have been highlighted herein </li></ul>
  30. 30. Normative references <ul><li>ISO IEC 17024 (requirements for CBs) is required by both standards </li></ul><ul><li>In addition, EN 473 specifies: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>CEN/TR 14748:2004, Methodology for qualification of non-destructive tests </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CEN/TS 15053: 2005, Recommendations for discontinuities-types in test specimens </li></ul></ul>
  31. 31. EN 473:2008 Bibliography <ul><ul><li>CEN ISO/TR 25107:2006, Guidelines for NDT training syllabuses </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CEN ISO/TR 25108:2006, Guidelines for NDT personnel training organisations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>CEN/TR 15589:2006, Code of practice for the approval of NDT personnel by recognised third party organizations under the provisions of Directive 97/23/EC </li></ul></ul>
  32. 32. ISO 9712:2005 Bibliography <ul><ul><li>ANSI/ASNT CP-189:2001, Appendix B, Training Outlines and References. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>IAEA-TECDOC-628/Rev.1:2002, Training Guidelines in Non-destructive Testing Techniques </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>EFNDT/S/02, Specification for Practical Examination Specimens. </li></ul></ul>
  33. 33. Responsibilities <ul><li>According to ISO 9712 clause 5.2, the certification body: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>should be recognized by the NDT community or the ISO member body of the country concerned </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>shall be supported by a technical committee composed of representatives of interested parties, for example: NDT societies, committees, users, suppliers and government departments as appropriate </li></ul></ul><ul><li>There is no such requirement in EN 473 </li></ul>
  34. 34. Responsibilities <ul><li>According to EN 473 clause 5.2.1, the Certification Body shall </li></ul><ul><ul><li>require all candidates and certificate holders to give a signed undertaking to abide by a code of ethics which it shall develop for the purpose and publish. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>There is no such requirement in ISO 9712 </li></ul>
  35. 35. Eligibility - Training <ul><li>There are significant increases in the minimum duration of training defined in EN 473 over the minimum durations specified in ISO 9712 </li></ul><ul><li>EN 473 additionally states a minimum duration of 80 hours training prior to the Level 3 basic examination </li></ul>
  36. 36. Eligibility - Experience <ul><li>EN 473 clause 6.3 states: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A minimum period of experience prior to examination shall be defined ... </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In the event that a part of the experience is sought following successful examination, the results of the examination shall remain valid for two years. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>ISO 9712 requires no experience prior to examination, and recognises the examination results as valid for five years </li></ul>
  37. 37. Eligibility - Experience <ul><li>The standards are similar in their requirements for minimum durations of experience. </li></ul><ul><li>However, EN 473 includes a condition: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>These values assume that candidates have successfully completed at least two years of engineering or science study at an accredited college or university. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>In the event that this is not the case, the duration has to be multiplied by a factor of 2. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>There is no such condition in ISO 9712 </li></ul>
  38. 38. Eligibility - Vision <ul><li>The standards are identical, except that EN 473 introduces the ability to differentiate between shades of grey (see FREE test chart ) </li></ul>
  39. 39. Examination Format <ul><li>Excepting the average maximum time allowed to answer questions (2 versus 3 minutes), the standards appear to be identical in this regard </li></ul>
  40. 40. Re-examination <ul><li>… of failed initial examination parts </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EN 473 allows two retests </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ISO 9712 also allows two retests </li></ul></ul><ul><li>… of failed recertification exam parts </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EN 473 allows only one retest </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ISO 9712 allows two retests </li></ul></ul>
  41. 41. Renewal <ul><li>The standards appear to be identical in this regard excepting that EN 473 additionally states that </li></ul><ul><ul><li>the renewal files shall be presented within the six months before the date of expiry of the certificate. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>files presented within twelve months after the date of expiry may be considered. Beyond this period, no exception is admitted. </li></ul></ul>
  42. 42. Recertification <ul><li>The standards appear to be identical in this regard excepting that EN 473 additionally allows: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In the case of operators carrying out repetitive testing during mass production, candidates for recertification shall demonstrate continued competence in the work performed, </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>as determined during an audit conducted by the Certification Body in the work place (with the employer’s written consent). </li></ul></ul>
  43. 43. Level 3 recertification <ul><li>Under the provisions of ISO 9712 : 2005, the Level 3 will demonstrate practical competence by </li></ul><ul><ul><li>success in a Level 2 practical examination or, if using the credit system for recertification … </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>documentary evidence of successful practical testing of a relevant specimen at an examination centre approved by the certification body </li></ul></ul><ul><li>There is no such requirement in EN 473 </li></ul>
  44. 44. Level 3 recertification exam <ul><li>EN 473 requires: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>a minimum of 20 questions on the application of the test method in the sector(s) concerned (at least 4 of which shall require narrative answers) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>and, at the option of the Certification Body, a minimum of 5 questions on the requirements of the certification scheme </li></ul></ul><ul><li>ISO 9712 requires only 20 multi-choice questions </li></ul>
  45. 45. Introduction of new exams <ul><li>Clause 12 in both standards provides for similar arrangements </li></ul><ul><li>However </li></ul><ul><ul><li>EN 473 allows appointment of examiners for five yeas, whereas </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ISO 9712 allows appointments as examiner for only two years </li></ul></ul>
  46. 46. Conclusions <ul><li>There are only a few significant differences between the standards </li></ul><ul><li>In most cases, these can be accommodated by the certification body (seeking to simultaneously comply with both standards) adopting the most stringent criteria </li></ul><ul><li>The standards are sufficiently similar as to allow mutual recognition of certification by those certification bodies for whom this is an important objective </li></ul>
  47. 47. CEN TC138 initiative <ul><li>Some differences still exist between EN 473:2008 and ISO 9712:2005, therefore it seems necessary to provide the marketplace with a set of tools and documents to identify potential issues as quickly as possible, and to trace and deal with them accordingly through a constructive communication based on objective evidences. </li></ul>
  48. 48. CEN TC138 initiative <ul><li>CEN/TC138 and ISO/TC135 should be able to address these issues by improving the promotion of a conformity assessment guide which allows users to select the tools they need from standards, whilst not prescribing any one means of conformity over another. </li></ul>
  49. 49. CEN TC138 initiative <ul><li>This implies that the set of requirements, referred to as standards, which are used to determine the framework of conformity assessment activities, have a rock solid foundation based on international consensus among CEN and ISO. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Albert Kozlowski, Chairman, CEN/TC138 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>(the present chairman is M. Patrick Fallouey) </li></ul></ul>
  50. 50. How to accomplish this? <ul><li>CEN/TC138 and ISO/TC135 should set up a joint working group with a remit to identify conformity issues between ISO 9712 and EN 473, and offer solutions acceptable to all users </li></ul><ul><li>This WG should remain on standby to consider future requests for interpretations </li></ul><ul><li>John Thompson, Chairman, ICNDT WG1 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>[email_address] </li></ul></ul>
  51. 51. Conclusions <ul><li>Lots of detail differences but few of great significance </li></ul><ul><li>Many ought to be resolvable by discussion and compromise </li></ul><ul><li>None would any prevent mutual recognition </li></ul>
  52. 52. List of key issues <ul><li>Training Syllabuses </li></ul><ul><li>Training hours </li></ul><ul><li>Duration of Experience </li></ul><ul><li>Recertification requirements </li></ul><ul><li>Others?? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Question level, common bank? </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Common date for review of Standards </li></ul>
  53. 53. Recommendations <ul><li>TS: Noted that the out of sequence review of the two 3rd party standards leads to them to differ. ISO 9712 is due for review again next year, and we need to apply a joint review process. </li></ul><ul><li>Dr H Hatano : Concerning the proposed initiative for ISO and CEN to form joint WG: this has already been highlighted by JRT. During Certification 2007, AK proposed a Joint WG under TC 138 control. It had been planned to discuss this in plenary TC 135, but AK had been unable to attend the Argentina meeting. Subsequently, this was discussed by HH with AK and the CEN TC138 Secretary. At this point, ISO document N334 was tabled. </li></ul><ul><li>JMF: summarised the recommendations: </li></ul><ul><li>TC135, in response to TC138 proposal, is discussing a joint WG and will ask for a vote of TC135 members on the formation of such a WG. Does the meeting support this formation? A show of hands confirmed 33 representatives present in support. </li></ul><ul><li>JZ: Did not support this resolution, yet another WG is the last thing we need. There are no irreconcilable differences between TC135/TC138 – ISO 9712/EN 473. He suggested the submission of EN 473 to TC 135 as a draft for the next ISO 9712 (4th edition). </li></ul>
  54. 54. Way Forward agreed by all participants <ul><li>ICNDT will summarise this meeting’s views and submit to the Chairs of TC135/ and TC138 </li></ul><ul><li>ICNDT will ask the proposed joint TC135/TC138 WG to accept a representative of ICNDT </li></ul><ul><li>ICNDT could offer a neutral Chairman if necessary </li></ul>
  55. 55. ICNDT Guide <ul><li>4. What Recommendations can we give now in our ICNDT Guide? </li></ul>
  56. 56. ICNDT Guide <ul><li>Interim Version issued to ICNDT members in Shanghai. </li></ul><ul><li>This version excludes Section 7 Recommendations </li></ul>
  57. 57. Process agreed by GA to establish agreement on Section 7 Recommendations and finalise document <ul><li>Operating Procedure OP06 gives responsibility to the Editorial Committee established by PGP and, if agreement cannot be reached, to the PGP </li></ul><ul><li>Way forward proposed by PGP </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Invite email comment from full ICNDT membership on the whole document and on the draft Section 7 with a deadline of 31 Dec 2008 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Present Section 7 to ICNDT Workshop on Certification and invite comment at the meeting and afterwards by email by 31 Dec 2008 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Chair of WG1 and Editorial Committee to complete document (following Operating Procedure P 06) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Publish final version </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>PGP to appoint a new Editorial Committee to be responsible for periodic updating </li></ul></ul>
  58. 59. <ul><li>7. RECOMMENDATIONS </li></ul><ul><li>7.1 Recommendations to users of central, third party certification </li></ul><ul><li>When central, third party certification is appropriate, regulators and industry are recommended to specify the use of NDT personnel who are certified in accordance with ISO 9712 or an aligned standard by a Certification Body accredited to ISO 17024 </li></ul><ul><li>Regulators and users should communicate the importance of employers of NDT personnel properly fulfilling their responsibilities to authorise personnel to work (see Section 6) after first confirming that individuals are adequately trained, experienced and qualified. </li></ul>
  59. 60. <ul><li>7.2 Recommendations to Certification Bodies </li></ul><ul><li>Certification Bodies are urged to provide certification to both ISO 9712 and relevant aligned standards in order to maximise the value of their certification. In anticipation of future harmonisation, their training requirements should encompass the current documents ISO TR 25107 and/or CP 105 which define the body of knowledge. </li></ul><ul><li>7.3 Recommendations to Standards Bodies </li></ul><ul><li>Standards Bodies ISO,CEN and ASNT/ANSI are urged to harmonise their standards for third party certification, whilst allowing within the Standard(s) some flexibility for national conditions. </li></ul>
  60. 61. <ul><li>7.4 Recommendations for future ICNDT activities </li></ul><ul><li>ICNDT should continue to review the existing versions of the ISO9712, EN473, and CP106 Standards and make recommendations on how to harmonise them. </li></ul><ul><li>ICNDT members should share experience on development and operation of multilateral recognition agreements and with a view towards possible mutual recognition the participants in the between the EFNDT and APCNDT agreements and extension to other regions. </li></ul>
  61. 62. <ul><li>The Chairman concluded the meeting by thanking the panels of experts and the audience for their participation </li></ul><ul><li>It was requested that the information presented at the meeting be captured and published on the ICNDT website </li></ul>

×