Accepting One NDT Certification In Lieu of Another — Writing the Policy

Can we accept ASNT Level III in lieu of an API qualification?

Generally no — and the reason matters more than the answer. The two qualify different things. An ASNT Level III demonstrates method authority: the ability to establish techniques, approve procedures and interpret results in a specific NDT method. An API individual certification demonstrates knowledge of an in-service inspection code — how to assess a vessel, piping system or tank against API 510, 570 or 653. Neither substitutes for the other because neither is a stronger version of the other.

A policy that treats one as outranking the other will produce exactly the wrong outcome: a Level III signing inspection reports on equipment they are not code-qualified to assess, or an API inspector approving NDT procedures they are not method-qualified to approve.

The right question to ask about any equivalence

Not "which certification is better" but "what does this scope actually require someone to do?" Write the requirement against the task:

• Approving an NDT procedure or technique — method authority, so a Level III in that method.
• Performing an examination and evaluating indications — Level II in that method, per your Written Practice.
• Assessing in-service equipment condition against a code and signing the inspection — the relevant API certification.
• Judging weld quality against a fabrication code — a welding inspection qualification such as CWI, which is again a different scope.

Once the requirement is written this way, most equivalence arguments answer themselves.

Where equivalence genuinely does apply

Between personnel certification schemes covering the same method and level, there is real comparability — ASNT and PCN, and ISO 9712 against SNT-TC-1A, qualify the same technical competence through different administrative routes. The structural difference is who certifies: SNT-TC-1A puts it on the employer, ISO 9712 and PCN on a third-party body. For an employer accepting an incoming technician, a central certification is easier to verify; an employer-based certification from a previous company is not transferable and the technician must be certified under your own programme regardless of what they hold.

Aerospace is its own regime — NAS 410 and EN 4179 govern there, with customer approval frequently layered on top, and a general industrial certification does not carry across.

Wording that survives an audit

State the requirement by scope and name the acceptable qualifications for it explicitly. Say who has authority to approve an exception, require it in writing against the named scope, and keep the record with the personnel file. Avoid open-ended phrases like "or equivalent" with no named approver — an auditor reads that as no policy at all. And state plainly that certifications issued by a previous employer are re-established under your own Written Practice, because that is the single most common misunderstanding when experienced technicians join.

Reviewing a written practice or a certification policy is one of the more common Level III consulting engagements we take. Ask us to review yours.