exida was recently auditing a systems level project per IEC 61511.  During such audits we check to verify that all equipment used in a safety instrumented function meets systematic capability by either IEC 61508 certification OR justification per reasonable IEC 61511 “prior use” criteria.  Most engineers at Refinery A choose the IEC 61508 certification route since that involves much less work and the certification provides stronger justification.

During the review of the IEC 61508 certified equipment, a few questions were asked:

• “Are these Certification Bodies (CB) accredited to do functional safety certification per IEC 61508?”
• “Is exida an accredited CB for functional safety per IEC 61508?”
• “Should the Accreditation Body (AB) logo be placed on each CB product certificate?”

There was some discussion on this subject in internet safety forums last year.  One post said that any CB certificate must have the AB logo on it to be valid.  exida was not putting the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) logo on our certificates so it was assumed that exida had no accreditation.  But exida is accredited for many functional safety standards including IEC 61508 by ANSI who is the official United States IEC liaison body.  exida added the ANSI logo to our certificates per ANSI usage requirements. The latest certificates can be found on our Safety Automation Element List. 

Since exida did most of the certifications for products on the systems level project at Refinery A, their equipment justification chart filled in quickly.  But when one certification was checked, the company issuing the certificate did not show their country AB logo.  When contacted by the engineer from Refinery A, the certification company said they issued “house certificates.”  Given that I had never heard of the term, I asked what is this?  The response given to our customer was “When we do not follow our accredited procedures, we issue a house certificate based on our technical reputation.”  Wow.  I need to check this out myself. 

When exida began our certification program we created a quality process compliant with IEC Guide 65 (EN45011) and followed it. I admit we issued certificates before we completed accreditation, however the accredited process must be followed on every single job.  To totally ignore the international product certification process seems quite arrogant as well as legally risky.  So exida did advise Refinery A to create a prior use justification on that product to show full compliance with IEC 61511. 

In the end each operating company must decide if they wish to accept House Certificates or not.  If there is a government regulator involved, as in some countries, the House Certificate approach seems to represent a significant regulatory approval risk.  Regulatory authorities have strict rules about following international standards.  And consider the legal risks.  What if an incident occurs some day?  I do not begin to understand all the logic of a legal system but the story does not sound good to me if I were on a jury. 

I will investigate this new term, House Certificate, further.  So should you.