Corporate Level III definition?

Date 08-07-2013 18:29 Edited 08-08-2013 03:26

A corporate Level III is one of those terms coined by who knows who. It is like the term "slag tracks", we all "know what it means", but it is a nonstandard term.

My guess is that the corporate Level III represent the contractor on issues related to NDT. As per the recommendations of SNT-TC-1A the corporate Level III is what ever or who ever is defined in the contractor's written practice. He may even be "certified" by anointment with no additional credentials if that is what is written in the written practice and if the customer is goofy enough to fall for it.

All this makes a good argument to insist on referencing ASNT CP-189 in the project specifications. It is a standard with the minimum requirements that must be met. It doesn't permit the contractor to "water-down" the requirements and the Level III must pass the Level III examinations administered by ASNT.

Best regards - Al

By 99205

Date 08-08-2013 01:52

Sounds the an "Ego" title to me.

By supermoto (***)

Date 08-12-2013 17:09

I figured it was something like that.

That darn recommended practice SNT-TC-1A. Not sure why the industry keeps using it, I guess its because companies can get a way with more.

Thanks for the reply

By 803056

Date 08-12-2013 17:31

The shipyard like it because they do not need any outside involvement, i.e., no third party. NDT labs like it because they can do pretty much as they please. Most customers have no idea what they are buying. They are just looking for a rubber stamp saying all is good.

I always recommend CP-189 to my clients. At least then the minimum requirements are just that, requirements, not simply recommendations. Also, CP-189 requires the Level III to be certified through ASNT. The Level III is bound by a Code of Ethics when they are qualified ad certified through ASNT and can be held accountable.

Best regards - Al

By fschweighardt (***)

Date 08-12-2013 21:59

On a slightly related note, what (if any) is the difference between ASNT ACCP Level II and III certification and the ASNT NDT Level II and Level III programs.
Also which (if either of these is the CP-189 program I only see a reference to CP-109 on the ASNT page referring to the ACCP Level II program.

Reason I ask is we are trying to write a decent specification for NDT work, and I am tired of "Homemade" SNT-TC-1A documents held by guys who appear to max out on their experience with RT at the dentist's office.

By 803056

Date 08-13-2013 15:23

Are you referring to ASNT CP-106? That qualification / certification document was developed to meet ISO 9712.

CP-189 is an employer based qualification / certification wherein the Level III must be certified through the ASNT's ACCP certification, i.e., the Level III is certified by ASNT after passing the qualification prerequisites and the ASNT examination. Once certified by ASNT and incorporated into the employer's written practice, the Level III is responsible for the administration of the employer's NDT program.

Best regards - Al

By fschweighardt (***)

Date 08-13-2013 15:40

Sure enough, CP-106. I am trying to figure out what/who we should specify as being allowed to perform NDT on various projects. I am leaning toward requiring ACCP certification of the Level III who develops the inspection procedure/administration. This appears to be covered by the CP-189 document as you explain above. I am also fairly sure I want ACCP Level II certified technicians performing the various inspections.

Trouble is we have various small projects all over the country, and finding ACCP certified personnel is not as fast and easy as I would like. Am I going too far overboard with ASNT ACCP accredited folks?

Does CP-189 mandate ACCP Level II's or is it just the level III? I have ordered the CP-189 book, but it is print only and will take a few days. Im not into the free crap online

As mentioned above, I am just desperately sick of cheesy SNT-TC-1A procedures, technicians, and reports. The hope is that requiring these "higher" level certifications will eliminate some of that nonsense.

By jwright650 (*****)

Date 08-13-2013 15:50

My Level III does the training and tests me to CP-189, NAS 410 and SNT-TC-1a...so it covers well.

By 803056

Date 08-13-2013 15:59

As stated, only the Level III must be certified by ASNT when working to the requirements of ASNT CP-189.

Our industries are market driven for the most part. Companies will not participate in central certification programs such as AWS QC1 or ASNT's ACCP until customers demand it.

I have been certified through the ACCP program since the mid-90's. It is a marketing thing. It shows the client that I am not certified by anointment and there is third party involvement.

The contractor's written practice is the one document that the customer must depend on when determining whether the contractor selling NDT services is properly qualified and certified to meet the needs of the project. Too many customers are looking for the easiest, cheapest way out of meeting a contract requirement. They get what they pay for in the long run. No contract should b awarded until the potential NDT contractor has submitted their written practice and the customer has reviewed and approved it. That is true regardless of whether the technicians are certified to SNT-TC-1A, CP-189, or to a military standard. If the customer has no one on staff that is qualified to perform the review, they should use the services of an ACCP Level III to perform the review. In the long run, it will save money and headaches.

Under ACCP the Level III must be capable of performing all the tasks assigned to the Level II, so contrary to the common belief of some, the Level III qualified and certified under the auspices of ACCP should be fully capable of fulfilling the role of the Level II with regards to performing the NDT. The contract will or should stipulate whether the Level I can assist the Level II or whether they can accept or reject parts in accordance with the procedures.

Not mentioned is that it all depends on the project specifications. The project specification is the bible once the contract is awarded. If it isn't specified in the PJ, you ain't getting it. I just had a problem presented by one of my clients last night. They were not happy with the appearance of some of the welds provided by a contractor. The welds met D1.1 relative to size, length, location, etc., but as we all know, there is not criteria for ugly in D1.1. "Sorry Johnny, you gots to put it in the project specifications before going to bid."

Best regards - Al

By fschweighardt (***)

Date 08-13-2013 17:05

That is exactly what I am trying to accomplish. I am getting our project management group to finally listen to the idea that we have to provide detailed RFQ's/contract bid documents that contain OUR requirements for a given project. This document would be the template for our project specifications, and will stipulate all manner of things that are not called out inthe code. For example, we only allow AWS CWI's to inspect our structural work. Doesn't matter if it is the Contractor's inspector or a Verification Inspector (TPI, generally), we will not accept the "duly designated" version. We don't allow globular transfer on pre-qualified D1.1 procedures and I won't accept volt & amp parameters that look like they might be globular.

We do a bunch of ASME B31.3 piping, and so we almost always need 5% RT, and we rarely get what I would call a solid submittal of inspectors quality manual, much less inspection reports

By supermoto (***)

Date 08-26-2013 12:18

fschweighardt; I see your concern for competent technicians, but if an individual is successful in passing Level II exams whether they are ACCP Level II, CP-189, SNT-TC-1A, NAS-410, or random Level III made exams and received certification as a Level II. I would make it clear in their interview or in their contract that they will be required to prove accurate and complete OJT hours and to pass a stringent set of examinations to show their competency. I know a lot of technicians that have not had the chance to take ACCP exams, or do PDI qualifications due to not having financial means or support from employers to take such exams.

A lot technicians are quite competent to do whatever you want but they would need to prove it during the examinations for certification. There are a lot of companies that want to hire "newbies" in the industry and educate them the correct way and don't even care if they leave the company, as long as they taught correctly and put in the industry as competent technicians that is all they care about. Maybe you can find less experienced Level II's and test them and see what they got or educate and teach them the better techniques and give them the knowledge they deserve and that the industry deserves. This is an industry that requires OJT and a lot of it to become the best and if companies don't do that then we will be always looking for good quality and experienced technicians.

I have been fortunate to have a few companies give me a chance with some great training and I have also been with companies that didn't do me any justice at all and their whole certification process was a joke.

I guess the whole point of my rant is to get companies and people to help give the newbies a chance whether they have the qualifications on paper or not, as long as they have enough hours for Level II some might be a crap shoot and other might be geniuses.

By newinsp (**)

Date 08-14-2013 14:12

A Level III employer promised us to "sign you off," as he put it, as a level II UT technician if we worked with him for 12 months. That was in 1987. I got laid off at 11 months. I was wondering if that would that have been the same thing, just a title? So much has changed since then.

By 803056

Date 08-27-2013 14:13 Edited 08-28-2013 14:10

Hiring a testing lab is very different than hiring a lab tech as an employee.

Not all qualification tests written to SNT-TC-1A are created equal. Some are written so that any monkey with a pencil can fill out the answer sheet and pass the test. I had one contractor submit a written practice that listed education - none, training - none, examinations - none. Per SNT-TC-1A, as a recommended practice, it was legal provided the Owner agreed to the conditions listed. The word of caution here is that it is imperative to demand the contractor's written practice and read it.

It isn't often there will be an interview process involved when hiring a testing lab to perform work on a remote site. The Owner must develop a project specification that is appropriate for the work to be done. Once the project specification is developed, the Owner has to be willing to enforce the requirements. To that end, the Owner must be willing to take the time to review the submittals before awarding the contract. Once the work is underway, the Owner must be willing to enforce the requirements of the project specification by providing verification inspection and project oversight.

The courts are not likely to provide the Owner satisfaction if the Owner failed to provide oversight during the execution of the contract. In other words, if the Owner does not provide a certain level of due diligence by requesting and reviewing various submittals and if the Owner does not provide a level of verification inspection, the court will not support the Owner's efforts to recoup their losses when things go horribly wrong.

In the case of NDT, the Owner should specify the NDT qualification and certification document they feel is appropriate for the NDT and the work being performed. If the highest level of qualification is demanded, it is appropriate to impose CP-189 as the qualification and certification standard. The provides the prospective contractor with the minimum requirements that must be met by all NDT personnel. CP-189, as stated previously, is a standard rather than a recommended practice. If the project isn't as demanding, perhaps SNT-TC-1A is acceptable to the Owner, but it must be recognized that SNT-TC-!A is a recommended practice that can be modified by the contractor. The conditions of qualification/certification of NDT personnel can be a stringent or and generous as the contractor wishes when meeting SNT-TC-1A. While one contractor will impose stringent training and experience requirements, another can make the conditions generous to the point where no training and experience is necessary and yet, both contractors have complied with SNT-TC-1A.

Once the requirements are invoked, the Owner's work isn't completed. The contract must be enforced. The Owner should require each prospective contractor to submit a copy of their written practice. The written practice defines the contractor's qualification and certification requirements. It will define the levels of certification, the minimum education, training, and education requirements that must be met by prospective NDT technicians. It will also define the regiment of examinations that must be successfully completed before certification is granted. The Owner should review the written practice to see if it satisfies their needs and expectations. If the written practice isn't up to expectations, the contractor should be disqualified. The Owner should also request copies of the NDT procedures for each NDT method that will be used on the project. The procedure might have to be tweaked to met specific job requirements, but at least the Owner will know that the contractor can develop the NDT procedures. The NDT procedures should also include a sample test report. The Owner should also request copies of the certifications and supporting qualifications for key NDT personnel, i.e., the Level III as a minimum. The contractor may have to hire new personnel if the project warrants additional manpower. Still, even when additional personnel are added to the project, their qualifications and certifications should be requested and submitted to the Owner for review and approval.

Key to the success of the project is the willingness of the Owner to meet his obligation to review and approve the documentation submitted by prospective NDT contractors. The Owner must vet each of the contractors interested in bidding on the work and determine whether the contractors' bids should be considered. When the Owner doesn't have the personnel needed to properly evaluate the contractors' submittals, he should retain the services of a third party that can properly evaluate the documentation and submittals.

Best regards - Al