The Certification File an Owner's Auditor Opens First

Employer-based certification: what that phrase commits you to

ASNT SNT-TC-1A is a recommended practice. It is not a standard, it is not a law, and ASNT does not certify anyone under it. What it does is describe how an employer should build a defensible programme for qualifying and certifying its own nondestructive testing personnel. The employer writes a document called the written practice, adopts or modifies the recommendations in it, trains and examines its people against that document, and issues the certificates itself. Everything downstream flows from that one architectural choice.

The consequence people underestimate is that the certificate is not portable. It exists because of an employment relationship and it ends with that relationship. A Level II ultrasonic technician who leaves one Baytown contractor for another does not arrive certified. The new employer may accept the training records, examination results and experience log as evidence — and normally will — but it must certify the technician against its own written practice, which usually means retaking at least the specific and practical examinations on its own procedures.

The mirror image is ISO 9712, which is central third-party certification. An accredited certification body examines the candidate, and the certificate belongs to the individual, travelling with them between employers and across borders. Neither model is superior in the abstract. The employer model gives an owner tight control over qualification against its own products and procedures; the central model gives an individual a credential nobody can revoke by ending a contract. Baytown process work runs predominantly on the employer model, and international assignments predominantly on the other.

What the written practice must contain

A written practice that will survive an owner's audit states, at minimum: the edition of SNT-TC-1A it adopts; the scope of methods and levels the employer certifies; the education, training and experience required for each method and level combination; how examinations are composed, administered and graded; the passing score convention; vision requirements and their frequency; recertification intervals; interrupted-service and reinstatement provisions; the use of limited or restricted certification; the conditions under which an outside agency may be used; records retention; and the identity of the NDT Level III responsible for the programme.

Two of those deserve emphasis. The edition matters because the recommendations have changed materially between editions, most visibly in recertification intervals. A practice that names no edition, or names one edition while the certificates were graded under the rules of another, produces an internal contradiction that an experienced auditor finds in minutes. And the Level III designation matters because the entire programme derives its technical authority from that person; if they are not named in writing, with their own qualification evidence on file, the authority behind every certificate is unsupported.

The practice must also match reality. It is common to find a well-drafted document describing a programme nobody follows: it promises annual technical performance evaluations that were never conducted, or specific examinations tailored to products the company has not touched in five years. An auditor tests the document against the files. A modest practice executed faithfully passes; an ambitious practice executed loosely fails, and fails worse, because the gap between the two is itself the finding.

Training hours and experience hours: reading the tables correctly

The SNT-TC-1A tables give, for each method and level, a number of hours of organised training and a number of hours of experience in the method, with a further figure for total experience across all methods where a technician works in more than one. For ultrasonics the commonly cited Level I values are 40 training hours, 210 experience hours in the method and 400 total NDT hours, with Level II adding a further 40 training hours and 630 experience hours in the method against 1,200 total. Other methods carry their own figures, and the surface methods are considerably lighter.

Experience hours are the ones that get inflated. Experience means hands-on performance of the method under the direction of qualified personnel. It is not classroom time counted a second time, not mobilisation and travel, not report typing, and not observing. Auditors ask to see the log, not the summary. A file containing a single line that reads 'UT — 630 hours' with a supervisor's initials beside it cannot be reconstructed or tested, and that is exactly why it draws a finding. A per-shift log recording date, component, technique and supervising technician takes two minutes a day and settles the question permanently.

Level III has a different structure. The tables offer alternative education-and-experience routes — a four-year science or engineering degree with a shorter period of additional experience beyond Level II, a two-year programme with a longer one, or an extended period of Level II experience with no degree. All three are legitimate. What is not legitimate is asserting a route without the documentation that supports it, and degree transcripts belong in the certification file alongside the examination records.

The three examinations and the grading rule that trips people

The general written examination tests principles of the method, independent of any one employer: the physics, the variables, the equipment and the limits. It is the most portable part of the qualification and the part most training courses cover well. The specific written examination tests the employer's own equipment, procedures, techniques and the acceptance criteria applied to the products it actually examines. It has to be written by the employer, for the employer. A generic specific examination containing questions about codes and products the company never encounters is a finding, and an obvious one.

The practical examination is the part with teeth. The candidate is given equipment, blocks and specimens and observed while calibrating, examining and reporting, and is graded against a checklist that must be retained with the specimens identified. Practicals fail on process rather than perception: calibration verification steps skipped, surface preparation neglected, couplant discipline lost, report fields left blank. A candidate who finds every reflector but cannot demonstrate that their instrument was correctly and repeatedly verified has demonstrated the wrong thing.

The grading convention catches people out. The usual rule is a composite score of at least 80 percent across the three parts, with no individual part below 70 percent. A candidate can therefore score strongly overall and still fail on a single weak paper. Employers sometimes apply the composite rule and forget the floor, which produces certificates that do not comply with their own written practice — a self-inflicted finding that surfaces the moment an auditor recalculates one file.

Vision, and the annual test everyone forgets

Every level in every method requires demonstrated visual capability, and the written practice must specify it. The conventional near-vision requirement is Jaeger Number 1 or an equivalent type read at a distance of not less than twelve inches, in at least one eye, with corrective lenses permitted. Colour-contrast differentiation must also be demonstrated to the extent the methods require it, which matters most for penetrant and magnetic particle work where the evaluation depends on distinguishing indication from background.

Frequency is where programmes drift. Near vision is normally retested annually, and that annual cycle is the most commonly missed control in the whole certification system — not because anyone objects to it, but because it is administrative, unglamorous and owned by nobody in particular. Once a vision record passes twelve months, every examination the technician performed after that date sits inside an audit boundary, and the remedy is a fresh test plus a documented review of the intervening work.

The fix is mechanical. Put vision expiry dates in the same tracker as certification expiry dates, alert at ninety days, and refuse to issue a work assignment against an expired record. Contractors working Baytown turnarounds already run gate-access and site-training expiry tracking with this discipline; extending it to vision and certification costs nothing and removes an entire class of finding permanently.

Recertification, interrupted service and recovering a lapse

Recertification intervals are edition-dependent, and this is precisely why the edition your written practice adopts is not a trivia question. Older editions of SNT-TC-1A worked on a three-year cycle for Levels I and II with five years for Level III; the current edition moved to a five-year interval across the levels. An employer whose practice cites one edition while its certificates run on the other has a defect it will not notice until someone recalculates an expiry date in front of them.

Recertification is not automatic renewal. The written practice must describe how it is achieved — commonly by re-examination, or by documented evidence of continuing satisfactory technical performance evaluated by the Level III, or a combination. Whichever route the practice chooses, the evidence has to exist. 'Continuing satisfactory performance' with no performance evaluation on file is an assertion, not a record, and it is one of the easier findings for an auditor to write.

Interrupted service needs its own clause. When a technician is away from a method for an extended period, the practice should state what happens: refresher training, re-examination on the specific and practical papers, a fresh vision test, and reinstatement signed by the Level III. Logged experience hours are not lost — the history stands — but the certificate does not bridge the gap by itself. Backdating a renewal to close a gap retrospectively is the one response that turns an ordinary administrative lapse into a serious integrity finding.

When an employer programme is not enough: CP-189, ISO 9712 and NAS 410

ANSI/ASNT CP-189 is a standard rather than a recommended practice, which changes its character entirely: its provisions are requirements, not options an employer may adjust. It is more prescriptive on education, training and experience, requires documented practical examinations, and requires the employer's NDT Level III to hold ASNT NDT Level III certification or an accepted equivalent rather than merely satisfying an in-house definition. Some owners specify CP-189 explicitly, and nuclear and defence-linked work is where it most often appears.

ISO 9712 is central certification through an accredited body. The candidate satisfies training, experience and vision requirements, then passes general, specific and practical examinations administered by or on behalf of the certification body. The certificate is typically valid for five years, renewable for a further period on evidence of vision and continuity of work in the method, with a full recertification involving practical re-examination at the longer interval. Because the certificate is the individual's property, it is the credential of choice for technicians who expect to work internationally.

Aerospace runs on a third framework. NAS 410 sets personnel qualification requirements for the aerospace sector, with its own hour tables, examination provisions and Level III responsibilities, and prime contractors flow it down through their supply chains. An employer serving several sectors may legitimately need more than one framework in play. What it may not do is quietly blend provisions from SNT-TC-1A, CP-189 and NAS 410 into an unattributed house hybrid, because the resulting programme complies with nothing in particular.

Baytown: who imposes these requirements, and when they check

Baytown sits at the centre of one of the densest concentrations of process equipment in North America: a large integrated refining and olefins complex, chemical and polymer production on Cedar Bayou, and the tankage, terminals and docks of the Houston Ship Channel, supported by a ring of pipe fabrication shops and module yards. Every one of those operations runs a mechanical integrity programme, and every one of those programmes depends on NDT data produced by certified technicians.

The requirement reaches contractors through several channels at once. Construction codes reach it through ASME Section V and the referencing sections, which require examination personnel to be qualified under an employer's written practice built on SNT-TC-1A, CP-189 or ISO 9712 as the referencing code directs. In-service inspection programmes built around API 510, API 570 and API 653 depend on qualified NDT personnel supplying the thickness and examination data those programmes consume, even though the inspector certifications themselves are a separate track. Owners add contractual requirements on top, and contractor pre-qualification systems verify them before a purchase order exists.

The timing is what hurts. Certification records are examined at pre-qualification, at contract award, at site mobilisation, during owner surveillance of live work, and after any quality event. A finding raised the week before a turnaround does not get resolved politely — it removes technicians from the roster during the only window in which the work can be done. The economics are not subtle: the cost of running the certification programme properly for a year is smaller than the cost of one crew held at the gate for a day.

What Atlantis delivers, and what it does not

Atlantis provides NDT training and certification preparation to ASNT SNT-TC-1A and ISO 9712 at Levels I, II and III across ultrasonic, radiographic, magnetic particle, penetrant, eddy current, visual, phased array and time-of-flight diffraction examination. Delivery is classroom, on-site corporate at your own facility with your own equipment and specimens, or blended. Founder-led ASNT Level III consulting supports employers who need a Level III of record's technical oversight without carrying one full time.

On the programme side, we draft and audit written practices, build general and specific examination sets that match the client's actual scope, design practical examinations with identified specimens and defensible checklists, and set up the record systems that make certification survive an owner's review. Where a client has already failed an audit, the work usually starts with reading the finding, the practice and a sample of files together, because the three rarely tell the same story.

We are explicit about the boundary. API 510, API 570 and API 653 inspector certification training is not part of this offer; those are separate API certifications with their own examinations, and we do not deliver them or act as an API inspector of record. We are not a process safety management auditor. What we do is make sure that when someone asks who certified your technician, against what document, on which examinations, the answer is on file. Affordable, accessible, fully customisable — consultation or quote on request at info@atlantisndt.com.

Request a consultation