4th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE
ON NON DESTRUCTIVE TESTINGGREAT BRITAIN 1963
September 10, 1963

3rd MEETING OF STANDING COMMITTEE
1.

A meeting of the International Standing Committee was held at the The
Institution of Mechanical Engineers at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday, 10th
September, 1963.

The following delegates were present:
Dr. L. Mullins
Dr. Ekkehart Krainer
Prof. G.A. Homes
Mr. Wm.E. Havercroft
Mr. R.D Barer
Mr. S.A. Lund
Prof. P.G. Bastien
Dr. R. Seifert
Mr. C.C. Bates
Mr. R. Main
Prof. G. Moravia
Dr. F. Baldi
Prof. H. Kihara
Prof. G. Shinoda
Mr. A. de Sterke
Mr. A. Baggerud
Prof. I. Malecki
Dr. Z. Pawlowski
Mr. D.B. Marais
Prof. Manuel de Miro
Mr. K.C. Gredborn
Mr. R. Hornung
Dr. G.E. Tenney
Mr. R.G. Strother
Mr. M. Micheev
Mr. I. Victorov

Great Britain
Austria
Belgium
CanadaCanadaDenmark
FranceGermany
Great Britain
Great Britain (Secretary)
Italy
Italy
Japan
Japan
Netherlands
NorwayPolandPolandS. Africa
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland
United States of America
United States of America
U.S.S.R.
U.S.S.R.

13

2.

Apologies for Absence

Apologies had been received from Mr. Vinter (Denmark) who nominated Mr.
Lund to take his place; Prof. Masi (Italy) who nominated Prof. Moravia and Dr.
Baldi; Prof. Markestad (Norway) who nominated Mr. Baggerud; Mr. Middlecote(S.Africa) who nominated Mr. Marais; and Mr. Swedenborg (Sweden) whonominated Mr. Gredborn.
3. Minutes of the Previous Meetings
The minutes of the meetings held on 15th and 19th March 1960 in Tokyo wereapproved as a correct record.
4. Terms of Reference for the Standing Committee
Dr. Mullins introduced discussion by asking approval to deal with draft No.3 ofthe Terms of Reference and also the proposed amendments put forward by theUnited States of America and West Germany together. This was agreed.
The Chairman invited Dr. Tenney to introduce his proposals. The latter pointed
to the great progress made in the last eight years but felt the need remained forstrengthening the administrative machinery, including pursuit of special projects
in between Conferences. He stressed that his proposals need not be taken butthat they were intended to serve as guiding principles.
Dr. Seifert agreed that the German proposals were generally similar to thosemade by the United States. He felt that it would not be possible at the twocurrent meetings to act on all these proposals but he hoped that the foundations
could be laid for a series of small meetings, between the main Conferences forthe purpose of discussing special non-destructive testing problems.
Mr. De Sterke advocated direct communication between the organizers of one
Conference and the next in order to pass on accumulated experience.
Professor Malecki agreed that the interchange of technical information was mostimportant and that smaller Specialized Conferences at international level wereneeded from time to time. The subject of a permanent secretariat was frequently
raised in international scientific organizations but it invariably led to increased
financial contributions. If the secretariat or national organization planning thenext Conference could cope with the work, then this should be consideredadequate. He pointed out that there was a considerable variation in nature
between the different representative international bodies- not all of them would
be equally effective.

14

Professor Kihara suggested that three or four Vice-Presidents from various
national societies would be advantageous as an aid to continuity.
Mr. Bates said that the British National Committee advocated the adoption ofdraft No. 3 as a working document for use while some of the other interestingideas put forward were being developed. The proposals which had been madewould need careful consideration and might affect the wording of several of theexisting paragraphs of draft No.3.
Although a permanent secretariat might have some advantages, it introduced aproblem of finance- equal contributions could not be expected from allparticipating countries. He queried the constitution of the proposed action
committee and asked whether there was justification for convening a smaller
body as opposed to more frequent meetings of the Standing Committee.
A number of speakers disagreed with the change of name which had been put
forward, while supporting the idea of a shorter title. It was agreed that this was
not an item of major importance and could be left for subsequent consideration.
Professor Homes expressed the view that there were three different items forconsideration here:
(I)
(II)
(III)

the formation of an international body and, subsequently, anappropriate name for itthe reinforcement of the Standing Committee and a subsequentchange of name, andthe establishment of a permanent secretarial office.

He felt that although this was not the time to come to definite decisions, there
was no reason why the matters should not be discussed. On the other hand, hehoped that some positive steps could be taken without waiting another four years
for the Fifth International Conference. Changes in the constitution were not soimportant as the introduction of specific working projects.
He suggested that much could be done by individual contributions from various
constituent societies; for instance, some countries could contribute effectively tothe accumulated literature or documentation, while another could pro tem provide
a secretarial office.
He supported the idea of more than one Vice-President, and suggested that oneof them should come from a country which had already played host to an
International Conference- this would provide for continuity.
He expressed his great satisfaction that the seeds of international co-operation
sown in Brussels had grown so considerably.

15

Professor Bastien felt it important to distinguish between the work carried thefunctioning of the existing Standing Committee within the present resources
would prove adequate so far as the near future was concerned. Improvements
were wanted in contacts in between Conferences and the establishment ofworking groups might effect this.
Mr. Gredborn did not believe that the Standing Committee could effectively carryout such things as the formulation of international standards without a permanentorganization.
Dr. Seifert felt that it would be wrong to wait until the next Conference before
deciding upon a final draft of the Terms of Reference. He undertook to contributeto the secretariat copies of all German papers but could not undertake theirtranslation into other languages.
Mr. Bates suggested that there was a need to adopt Terms of Reference which
could be utilized as a working authority by the International Standing Committee;
work on a revised draft could then continue on a firm foundation.
Dr. Mullins then proposed:a) that draft No.3 of the Terms of Reference should be adopted as aworking document,b) that the secretariat in the next host country should be charged to begin
work forthwith on a revised draft, taking into account the United Statesand German proposals, the comments that had been made at themeeting, and those which might subsequently be put forward in writingby the constituent national organizations, andc)
the submission to the secretariat of sufficient copies of all appropriate
papers and documents for general circulation.
The Chairman’s proposal was fully approved. Dr. Tenney expressed gratitude
for the spirit in which the proposals had been accepted.
5. Date and Place of Fifth International Conference
The Chairman recalled that the Canadian delegate at the Tokyo Conference in1960 had extended a tentative invitation to the Standing Committee to consider
Canada for the Fifth Conference. Mr. Havercroft had recently confirmed thisinvitation and its claim had been strengthened by the fact that Canada would be
the scene of a World Fair in 1967, coincident with the Dominion’s Centennial
Celebrations.
Mr. Bates moved that the next meeting by held in Canada in 1967 within suchconditions as the host may decide; this motion was seconded by Dr. Tenney andcarried unanimously.

16

The Chairman congratulated Mr. Havercroft on the acceptance of this invitationand charged him to act expeditiously on the Standing Committee’s wishes
expressed in 4b.
Mr. Havercroft said that the Canadian Society would be honoured by the privilegeof taking responsibility for the next Conference. He did not want to announce thedate at the present time but could say that the meeting would probably be held in
the industrial area of southern Ontario. The World Fair would be centred inMontreal.
Mr. Havercroft further pleaded for full co-operation of all constituent members in
the revision of the Terms of Reference.
Dr. Seifert formally extended an invitation to Germany for the Sixth Conference,and Professor Malecki expressed the hope that an early Conference would beheld in Poland in, say, 1973, or earlier. These invitations were accepted on atentative basis.
6. Formation of New National Societies-Membership of Standing Committee
Mention was made of steps being taken in Australia to establish a NonDestructive Testing Society.
It was also stated that an application from Hungary might possibly be submitted
in the near future.
It was suggested that inquiries be made about the activities in the nondestructive testing field in the Argentine.
7. Standardization of Non-Destructive Testing Methods and NomenclatureWith regard to the proposal made at earlier meetings for the development of amulti-lingual glossary of non-destructive testing terms, Mr. Bates reported thatthe British Standards Institution has for some time had a committee working onsuch a glossary which would presumably be submitted to the InternationalStandards Organization in due course.
Mr. Bates also reported that the British Standards Institution had set up acommittee to deal specifically with non-destructive testing matters and that thiswas currently on:
1.
2.

Standard methods of test for those methods now coming into general use,viz. Radiographic, ultrasonic and eddy current methods.
Standard Specifications for such items of test equipment and ancillary
apparatus that may be required in order to facilitate uniformity in testing.

173.

Standards for quality levels to be associated with the application of thesemethods of test engineering materials and components.

Referring to minute 4 ii) of the Standing Committee meeting held in Hakone on
the 9th March 1960, the Chairman recommended the submission by each countryof a progress report of the work being carried out.
8. Other Businessa)

b)c)
d)

Mr. Havercroft asked whether by “working group” Dr. Tenney in hisproposals was referring to working parties within the host country or at aninternational level. Dr. Tenney replied that his suggestion had been ageneral one, to be interpreted in the most effective way.
Professor Homes asked for a list of delegates on the Standing Committee,
with addresses, and the Secretary undertook to supply this with theminutes of the meeting.
Mr. Havercroft asked for ideas for an international non-destructive testing
symbol which could be used for future Conferences.
The Chairman asked whether the delegates had any further items to add
to the agenda (already circulated) for the Standing Committee meeting onFriday, 13th September. None were forthcoming and the meeting wastherefore closed.
PROPOSALS DEALING WITH TERMS OF REFERENCEAs Voting Member of the Standing Committee for International Cooperation
Within the Field of Nondestructive Testing, I, Gerold H. Tenney, wish to submit
proposals dealing with the Terms of Reference in the name of the Society for
Nondestructive Testing Inc., with its headquarters in Evanston, Illinois, UnitedStates of America.
1.

The name “The Standing Committee for International Co-operation Within
the Field of Non-destructive Testing” be changed to “International Working
Group for Non-destructive Testing”.

2.

This Working Group shall be composed of:A.
A President
B.
A Vice-President
C.
A Permanent Secretary’s OfficeD.
An Actions Committee
To A:
To B:

The President shall always be a member of that Society which
will be host to the next International Conference.
The Vice-President can but does not have to be a member ofthat Society which will be host to the next International
Conference.

18

To C:To D:

The Secretary’s Office shall, until further notice, be located in
the host country in the hope that eventually a permanent officecan be established in a mutually agreeable country.
The Actions Committee, under a Chairman to be appointed by
the President, shall deal with international problems of technicaland administrative nature, thereby supporting theresponsibilities of the President, the Vice-President and theSecretary’s Office. These activities are especially of paramountimportance during the years in which no International
Conferences are held.

3.

The international body shall consist of one voting and one non-voting
member of a country in which there is at least one technical society
especially interested in non-destructive testing.

4.

In order to establish and maintain a Secretary’s Office, contributions of theparticipating countries shall be made. This financial support shall cover all
office expenses which are the result of this office’s activities necessary tomaintain the continuity of this International Working Group. This financial
support must not be used for the immediate expenses necessary toorganize and host an international conference.

It shall be the duty of this International Working group to prepare at its earliest
convenience rules under which international conferences shall be conducted.
These rules shall deal, for instance, with the deadline for submitting technicalpapers, under what conditions such papers should be accepted or rejected, howtechnical sessions should be organized and how the Proceedings should bepublished.
It is self-evident which paragraphs of the present Terms of Reference shalltherefore be changed should the above proposal be accepted. The otherparagraphs of the present Terms of Reference do not need changes as far as theSociety for Non-destructive Testing, United States of America, is concerned.
Respectfully submitted,(sgd) Gerold H. Tenney
3rd August, 1963
PROPOSALSof the German “Gesellschaft fur zerstorungsfreie Prufverfahren” to change
the Terms of Reference: Draft No. 3 of April 1961 (AD/M/W/DA.23)
received 17th May, 1963

19

presented by Dr. R. Seifert, delegate of the German Society for Non-destructive
Testing.
In order to assure in the future a more flexible and more intensive international
co-operation in the field of non-destructive testing as well as to establish more
procedures for preparing international conferences, we consider it necessary tocreate a permanent office which then would have to deal with all the questions inconnection with the above mentioned subjects. It is our opinion that such apermanent office can be supported only by a group of national societies. Basedon such a consolidation a strong international organization could then be createdin the future which, for the time being, we could call “International Union for Nondestructive Testing”. Each country could then be represented by one society
only which would be the leading technical scientific organization in this specificfield in the respective country.
As the final goal, we visualize that such an international union should becomposed approximately as follows:
1.
2.
3.

A President
A permanent Secretary’s Office andAn Actions Committee

With regard to 1: The President should always be the Chairman of that Society inwhose country the next International Conference will be held.
With regard to 2: The duties of the permanent Secretary’s Office have to be fixedin special rules. The member societies shall be made responsible for financing
such an office.
With regard to 3: The Actions Committee should have the following
responsibilities:a)
b)
c)
d)

To clarify important international problems of technical scientificnature
To maintain documentation.
To form technical committees for the purpose of investigating suchproblems.
To prepare the technical scientific program of international
conferences.

To avoid difficulties considered by such a transition, we are proposing that thefirst international Secretary’s Office should be in the country where the next
International Conference will be held, but we are of the opinion that it would bepreferable that such an international office should not be permanently the officeof a national society. It should be organized above and beyond national
considerations and should eventually have its headquarters if possible in Europe.

20During a transition period to the next international meeting we suggest that sucha temporary office in the country of the next international conference shouldcontact the various important organizations at least once a year to discuss
general as well as specific problems. For such a communication we would
recommend personal contact as well as communication by letters.
(sgd) R. Seifert

September 13, 1963

21