Professional Documents
Culture Documents
in common, they teach individuals how to inspect surface preparation and application
of protective coating systems. ICorr, SSPC , and the B-Gas approval schemes will,
in addition to teaching individuals how to carry out inspections and how to develop
their inspection techniques, help with personnel development. However the same
cannot be said at this moment in regards to employment, as there is clearly a
simplified for inspectors by clients, particularly in the oil and gas sectors. You just
have to check out any oil and gas recruitment site to see that the vast majority of the
oil majors are asking for NACE or Frosio qualifications in accordance with NS 476
certified inspectors.
Why is this I hear you say?
Well in my opinion its rather simple! NACE have marketed their approval not only of
inspectors on a global scale but have also ensured that the benefits of their Coating
Inspection Programme (CIP) are recognised by the industry. NACE and Frosio have
also gone as far as ensuring that their approval schemes and certification levels
have become incorporated into industry standards such as the Norsok M501 and the
IMO PSPC resolution.
For example section 10. 2. 5 of the Norsok standard M-501 clearly states that:
Personnel carrying out inspection or verification shall be qualified in accordance with
NS 476 Inspector Level III, or certified as NACE Coating Inspector level II.
This is clearly not a should but a shall and a clear standard requirement.
So where does this leave our colleagues who are certified by institutes such as
ICorr, SSPC and B-GAS ? Well its leaves them high and dry. Put simply if you are
not certified by NACE or Frosio then ultimately you are not in conformance with the
standard requirements which prompts owners and operators alike, who incorporate
this standard into their corrosion control projects, to employ only the NACE II or
Frosio approved Level III inspectors.
This is also very similar to the IMO MSC.215(82) Performance Standard for
Protective Coatings for sea water ballast tanks which was developed in order to
attempt to achieve a good tank coating for 15 years service. The IMO PSPC calls for
coating inspectors to be certified to NACE Coating Inspector Level 2, FROSIO
Inspector Level III or equivalent as verified by the Administration.
What does equivalent mean within the PSPC, does this include the SSPC, ICorr or
B-Gas inspector? Well even though the SSPC Protective coating inspector
certificate is recognised as an equivalent to NACE 2 and Frosio III, it is up to the
Administration, and this means the Classification Societies, to decide if these
qualifications are acceptable under the PSPC regulations. What has happened in
practice is that each Class Society has had to issue a type approval for each
qualification it accepts as being equivalent in terms of the regulation. This is the
route SSPC and ICorr have gone, but Im not aware of attempts to get the old B-
Gas certification approved. However, for simplicity, clients would rather have an
inspector who is qualified as specified. Its a simple concept! And due to this we see
well qualified and experienced individuals , some who have been in the industry for
many years and have vast ship building experience, who can no longer work in the
yards simply because they do not possess the relevant qualification to abide by the
regulations.
NACE
SSPC
ICorr
Frosio
B-Gas
1 White
2 Green
3 (Peer
review)
3 Red
Otaining an inspection approval is much like obtaining a driving licence, you can sit
the course and pass the examination but ultimately it is how you perform on the
roads which really counts. We are all well aware that despite having a driving licence
there are many good and bad drivers. The very same can be said about inspectors.
Having level 3 certification or specialist certification from any approval body does not
mean that you are a Formula 1 racing driver regardless of which approval body is
issuing certification. It is how you perform on the circuit which ultimately governs
whether you are a good inspector / driver or not, and this comes with not only
certification but also with a great deal of experience and of course professional
integrity.
In my opinion it is however not the inspector nor driver in our road analogy who
suffers once they break the rules or dont perform in the field. It is the actual
inspection approval which suffers, you just have to look at the history of B-Gas
approval which was once regarded as the ultimate in inspection approval circles and
held with the upmost of integrity and regard. It is well believed that this approval was
mass marketed and ultimately became devalued across the industry.
Perhaps this is quite a strong statement. However this is clearly apparent by the
current industry demand. Do not get me wrong this was not because of the actual
technical content of the approval but because it was mass marketed. This resulted in
inexperienced inspectors i.e. guys who have the tickets but not the required
knowledge nor experience to use the certificate to its full advantage. (This is of
course is only my opinion and we all know what opinions are like) but to prove my
point on this topic how often do you now see requirements for certified B-Gas
inspectors? As we all know its rare compared to 10 / 15 years ago when almost all
inspectors held a level of B-Gas CSWIP certification.
And who suffers ? Everyone who possesses that qualification!
Its a shame because it was and is a real good inspection certification however it is a
victim of its own creation. One of the main questions now being asked by inspectors
within the protective coating inspection industry today is:
Is this now being repeated?.
My problem is at present I really cant answer this. For example the qualification
route for NACE, if adhered to in regards to the required experience for each
individual level before certification is issued, really is a truly remarkable technical
qualification The entry requirements for Frosio are even better. I believe it is this
point which is most important and firmly believe that there should be far greater
emphasis on monitoring individual field experience prior to entering further level
training and examination.
I believe NACE are simply answering the demand for certification coming from the
industry. It is ultimately the clients who dictate which approval their inspector should
possess and at what level. Currently NACE is in favour, so the industry responds.
We have to remember that NACE have been running for over 28 years with over
30,000 inspectors globally and I am sure there are some bad apples amongst this
figure but the same can be said about any of the other approval bodies.
Simply put, certification societies cant be responsible for individual integrity but they
are however fully responsible for ensuring that the inspectors who wish to progress
through their certification levels have the desired experience to qualify for entry this is where I believe the mistakes are made.
FROSIO EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS
Colour
Level
Experience Required
White
No Experience Required
Green
2 Years
Red
5 Years
I would also say that if you break the driving rules (again using our driving analogy)
you get your licence taken away and become in effect banned from driving. Should
the same principles not exist for inspectors who do not abide by the rules of the
inspection bodies code of ethics?
My answer to this is absolutely, yes!
This brings us to the other question which I am regularly asked and which is
regularly debated between Inspectors, contractors and employers i.e. what really
counts qualification or experience?
Well in my opinion I think this is quite simple and reflected by most of the approval
schemes. I strongly believe that both attributes are just as important as each other
and both are absolutely essential for the coating inspector, hence the essential need
for a level of experience for certification entry - a requirement which is incorporated
into many of the approval schemes.
Ultimately you can have all the qualifications in the world however if you do not have
practical experience of how to use this learned knowledge the results can be and
often are catastrophic.
It is no great secret that there are many highly certified inspectors without field
experience who are masquerading as protective coating specialists however this is
not something which can be blamed upon the approval schemes, the blame here lies
firmly with the owners and operators whom employ individuals primarily due to the
fact that they possesses a certificate.
Fortunately this can be rectified.
Owners and operators need to ensure that the inspectors that they are recruiting are
capable of doing the job! A certificate does not always ensure this. They also need
to determine the individuals integrity, usually the inspector is only as good as there
last job, so a potential employer does not really have to look too far.
A simple background check of the candidates CV and work history as well as a
reference checks and a face to face or telephone interview should always be carried
out as a minimum by clients looking to recruit. Do not employ inspectors just
because they have the ticket! Experience and professional integrity are just as vital.