Starting as an idea, they gain shape as a design, are built, commissioned, operated, maintained, upgraded and ultimately retired. Throughout this life the assets are subjected to ongoing conformity assessment. Designs are verified as compliant with codes and regulation; fabrication is inspected for compliance with construction codes and manufacture drawings; while operating, and in shut-down, the asset is examined for signs of deterioration that may impact safety and performance. At retirement, the asset may be “mothballed” or removed and its site rehabilitated. Therefore, throughout its life, the asset is tended by a range of inspectors.

These inspectors have the task of establishing the condition and conformity of the asset - perhaps for a specific characteristic, perhaps covering a broad set of objectives - and reporting this information to the asset owners and operators for their information and action.

Major decisions are made on the basis of this information. Is our asset compliant? Do we continue operation? Are there components or sub-assemblies needing repair / restoration / replacement? Such decisions can have far reaching effects on asset safety performance and financial viability.

But there is a key question unanswered in this picture of asset life-cycle management - how good is the information on which such decisions are based? Specialist skills are used to gather and interpret such information, but inspectors and design verifiers are human, with the strengths and foibles that entails. In complicated inspections - when dealing with large assets and complex conformity issues - it is a corporate entity, the inspection body, that assembles teams of inspectors, and even these specialist activities may be further sub-contracted.

Article continues below…

Under these circumstances, it is not enough to rely upon inspectors’ qualifications and experience, or to depend upon management systems within an inspection body. The critical and specialist nature of inspection demands a technically focussed response that considers all the factors that contribute to a credible result. Standards exist that set out the requirements of inspection bodies: AS/NZS ISO/IEC 17020 is the internationally recognised standard for inspection bodies. This standard incorporates the relevant requirements of the ISO 9000 series of standards, but goes further to consider such essentials as management of inspector competence, technical details of procedures and completeness of reports. Because of this extended technical scope, it is appropriate that bodies working to this standard gain accreditation.

NATA has been accrediting inspection bodies for over 10 years, building on its existing credibility in laboratory accreditation. Only accredited inspection bodies are able to issue inspection reports carrying the NATA logo, a guarantee that the inspection body has been subjected to a rigorous peer review and found compliant. Accreditation is open to both commercial and in-house inspection bodies, providing added assurance no matter the source of the information.

Owners, operators and specifiers should therefore consider specifying that all the assurance activities of an asset’s life - from design verification, through fabrication and installation to in-service inspections - be performed by NATA-accredited inspection bodies.