Anyone using the new ANSI/NCSL Z540.3-2006?

Charles Wathen

Involved - Posts
I received an email from NCSL about the new change to Z540 a few weeks ago. I ordered the document and noticed it's compleletly different than the old version of Z540. Looks like they took some of the items in 17025 and applied it to this standard.

I was just curious to see how many of you will be using this new procedure this coming year, and if there are any issues with the new standard?
Charlie

Summary: NCSL Z540-1 essentially combines MIL-STD-45662A, the consensus national standard for the U.S., and ISO Guide 25, the primary document recognized by the international community to ensure laboratory competence. Informational Handbook is also available. Part I of this standards sets out the general requirements in accordance with which a calibration laboratory must demonstrate that it operates, if it is to be recognized as competent to carry out specific calibrations. Part I applies to calibration laboratories in the development and implementation of their quality system. Part II of this standard sets out quality assurance requirements for a Supplier's system to control the accuracy of the measuring and test equipment used to assure that supplies and services comply with prescribed requirements.
 

Hershal

Metrologist-Auditor
Trusted Information Resource
The new document presents some interesting discussion with respect to how ABs operating in the U.S. will address the new document.....as you point out, some of 17025 has made its way into the new document.....

There is an article in the current issue of Measure that describes Z540.3

Hershal
 

Hershal

Metrologist-Auditor
Trusted Information Resource
I moved the thread because, while it does in fact deal with a Standard, the Standard actually is for calibration laboratories, and so more responses may reasonably be expected in this forum. The full title of the document is:

ANSI/NCSL Z540.3-2006 Requirements for the Calibration of Measuring and Test Equipment

Hershal
 

Charles Wathen

Involved - Posts
LOL - You know Hershal, I was going to place it in here, but the discription of the fourm did not mention this standard; therefore, being too logical based on the discription, I placed it in the other forum.

I've had some more time to digest this new standard, and one issue that will impact us is the calibration label - on section 5.2.1 (b), it states that we have to show "date of calibration". We have always used the date calibrated on our calibration label that we manually fill out, but we are in the process of moving to using a bar coded label that will have only the date due, not the date calibrated. This is being done to elimiate errors by production personal when recording dates and other information on the equipment or instrument. We call it a electronic eLHR label. The date calibrated will still be retained on our calibration certificates, but not visual to users.

We have found that production people get confused on dates, or mistake a date as being due instead of calibrated. We created a electronic calibration label that has the bar code, and only shows the date the instrument or equipment was calibrated. Since this is still in development, we are going to have to modify our bar code label to include the date calibrated.

The was another in section 4.1: "The reporting and accountability requirements shall be such that potential conflicts of interests do not adversely influence compliance with the requirements of this National Standard". My department of calibration recently changed from reporting to Quality to Operations. This should be interesting...

As Found Calibration: In section 5.2.3.1, it says, "notified of the nonconformity in a timely manner". LOL - what is a timely manner? One minute, one day, one week, etc. We have some that can take 30 days to complete.
 

Hershal

Metrologist-Auditor
Trusted Information Resource
You know Charles.....you do have one advantage with the new standard.....it is a VOLUNTARY standard, just as Z540-1 currently is.....

That is a good thing, because I now have a copy and after reading it, I believe all the U.S.-based ABs will have some challenges with the requirements and a bit of pain in the interpretive elements.....

As for your cal lab's change of reporting, if you are accredited then you should tell your AB.....

Hershal
 

Charles Wathen

Involved - Posts
BTW, will you be at MSC this year in Long Beach?
Not this year :(
I'm currently involved in a major company project to move our database to Maximo, and that is consuming all my time. We are combining 3 departments to use this software: Maintenance, Facilities, and Calibration. I'm heading up the calibration end, which involves getting input from our other sites: Santa Clara, Puerto Rico, and Ireland.
 
Q

Quality Bratz

Someone is available that specification?:confused::(
 
Last edited by a moderator:
D

Drew G

Available here.

Also, please understand that this is a copyrighted document.

Stijloor.


Hi All,


Our company is www.madgetech.com; we manufacture data loggers and have a calibration lab, engineering department, and full CNC machine shop with mills and lathes. We are ordering an ISO 17025:2005 quality management system template from this organization:

https://www.labcompliance.com/books/iso17025/order.aspx


In preparation for accreditation, we have also purchased the new Z540.3-2006 (this is a a book) from here:
http://www.techstreet.com/cgi-bin/detail?doc_no=NCSL|Z540_3_2006&product_id=1527026


We have also purchased ISO 17025:2005 requirements (this is in electronic format) from here:
http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=39883


I'd be interested to know what people think about Z540.3-2006 affecting ISO 17025:2005 and if that will likely add time to implementation.


I would say I have 4-5 other employees at my disposal to help, but I have not announced the ISO 17025:2005 "implementation team" yet. Is it possible to implement everything by yourself?


Finally, I am tasked with implementing ISO 17025:2005 and being A2LA Accredited in 9.5 weeks. Is it me, or is this impossible? To me, this is a brutally tight schedule of only 9.5 weeks, and allows absolutely no cushion room. That brings up another point: do my fellow covers think this is neigh on impossible, or did my boss really pull out a date of Thanksgiving 2010 and somehow choose a perfect date with plenty of cushion room? Let me know if that didn't make sense.

Thanks so much for your help. There is no other forum like this, and I'm not sure what I would do other than go crazy without it. It's like a "Bible for Quality Issues". I will try my best to reciprocate as I'm going through this process myself and will of course be documenting it. I will pass any non-copyrighted material/information I feel would be useful to fellow covers.

Thanks,
Drew G
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top Bottom