Validity of 7 Year Old Calibration Certificate

[sarasheed]

Our Laboratory is certified to ISO 17025:2005.We have procured a Master slip Gauge Box from Mutituyo on 15-10-2006 with calibration certificate traceable to Japan National Standard and put use as it was in good condition suitable for useing as a Master Standard.Date of certificte is 21-10-1999 and there is no indication about the validity of the certificate.The Auditor has raised a Major Non-confirmance since it has been calibrated 7 years back which is very long period.We have set a periodicity of calibration as 2 years in our system.

Is the Auditor's decision in raising the NC is correct?.We presumed that we can use it upto 15-10-2008 which is 2 years from the starting date of use .

sarasheed

[Jennifer Kirley]

Even though 7 years is a long period, I am confused about why you were iussued a major NC. Can you tell us exactly what the NC says?

[Jerry Eldred]

Since the certificate is seven years old and you have a two year interval, you would have to justify that it is valid to begin your calibration interval on the first date you used it. And you would also have to justify what has happened to the unit for the years since 1999.

Since it was calibrated in 1999, you have to prove that nothing has changed in such a long time (since it is multiples of your entire calibration interval).

I unfortunately would have to agree that if it were my standard, I would definitely send it out and have it re-certified rather than take the risk of the amount of time passed since it was calibrated something had possibly changed.

The only exception would be if you just bought it new from the manufacturer still in it's original box, and they gave you written justification that it is still valid to use after all those years since the original calibration date.

Sorry to be the bearer of a difficult position.

[BradM]

In Reply to Parent Post by Jerry Eldred

Since it was calibrated in 1999, you have to prove that nothing has changed in such a long time (since it is multiples of your entire calibration interval).

I unfortunately would have to agree that if it were my standard, I would definitely send it out and have it re-certified rather than take the risk of the amount of time passed since it was calibrated something had possibly changed.

The only exception would be if you just bought it new from the manufacturer still in it's original box, and they gave you written justification that it is still valid to use after all those years since the original calibration date.

Sorry to be the bearer of a difficult position.

I agree entirely with Jerry's reply. You have no idea where/how this standard has been stored, the use of it before you got it, etc. Was this brand new? How had it been stored? Etc.

Did you perform any type of cross-verification with other standards in your lab prior to use? Did you perform even a simple 1 to 1 check of some sorts?

You need to have this thing re-certified. The cost of recertification can be insignificant to the cost of making poor measurements with a potentially O.O.T. standard. Agreed?

Now, just my opinion, but I don't agree with the major NC on this one. But I do think it should be sent in.

[lawriematkin]

As you procured in 2006. Proof that the measurement equipment still conformed to requirements is required. As this is used as a master calibrator the auditor may have taken the N/C as systemic as all other gauges calibrated to the master on the evidence be out of calibration to the master.
Purchase, without a currect calibration certificate (2006) means you have no evidence that supports conformity

[BradM]

In Reply to Parent Post by lawriematkin

As you procured in 2006. Proof that the measurement equipment still conformed to requirements is required. As this is used as a master calibrator the auditor may have taken the N/C as systemic as all other gauges calibrated to the master on the evidence be out of calibration to the master.
Purchase, without a currect calibration certificate (2006) means you have no evidence that supports conformity

Hello! Welcome to the Cove!! Thanks for the great first post!

You make a valid point concerning the NC. I would go with a major if there was no certificate or evidence of calibration whatsoever. To me (and I am not a 17025 expert) this would be a minor, for citing not having a current, valid certification. That is an opinion, and I would defer to those much more proficient in 17025 than I.

I hope to see you contribute and add to our knowledge base here!

[Ken K]

I'm rather surprised Mutituyo sold you a standard with a 7 year old certificate.

I'm not surprised you received a major for using it. You indicate you have used it for a Master Standard, yet you have not indicated you have performed any type of verification on it. Chances are it is within tolerance for your use, but you have to proof except for an out of date calibration certificate.

Personally, I would send it out for calibration and wait for the results. If it is out of tolerance, you have nearly a year of data which will be questionable that I suspect the auditor will take a good look at.

Good luck.

[Hershal]

A corrective action is valid in this case, because the blocks had not been calibrated in 7 years, the original cert showed no evidence of validity, and your own system says two years. I would also have written a non-conformance.

The reality is, you cannot state that you know the value +/- the uncertainty value, of any block in the set. Temperature changes, skin oils, and many other factors will change the values.

As for the major/minor, each AB makes its own decision as to that grade system.....some use it, some do not.....I can't offer any real opinion on that.

Send it to an accredited lab and have it cal'd.....then staying on cycle is much easier.

Hope this helps.