I have just passed My LVLIII I decided to invent a manufacturing scenario and write a procedure to inspect the product and achieve manufacturers desired results. Please take a look. Did I  miss anything, was is too hard to understand?
Scenario :
A company has designed a product that uses plates of A36 steel. During fabrication drops are left over from other components. The company has decided it would be acceptable to weld these drops together to make another part of the assembly (saving a large sum of money in material).
During the first few weeks of production it was noticed in a few assemblies that cracks had appeared originating from the edge heading down the long axis of the weld, as well as some minor  porosity.
A study by the company with input from a LVL III has developed the acceptance criteria, and repair procedures.
The plate will have a portion near the edge exposed after assembly approx 4” in from the edge. In this area visual surface defects are undesirable.
The large amount money saved using these drops justifies tightening up the MT inspection procedure to ensure that the defects near the edge are found.
MT Procedure:

WELDERCO Ind.
MAGNETIC PARTICLE EXAMINATION PROCEDURE
Doc. No. : QP-001 Revision : 00   Page : 1 of 3
Date :July 17 2011
Approved by :                                                      .      Date:               .
    ASNT Level III
    # 103002
SCOPE:
This procedure describes the method for detection and evaluation of discontinuities at the surface during Magnetic particle testing of ferritic materials , using AC continuous and dry powder.
1.0 REFERENCE DOCUMENTS:
ASME Section V Article 7 T-762
QP-19 (Written practice for Qualification and certification of NDE personnel).
QP-202 (light meter calibration).
WPS# 1-2-F-R. (FCAW REPAIR)
WPS# 1-10-G-R (GTAW REPAIR)
MT-001 (Magnetic Particle Inspection Report).
2.0 PERSONNEL QUALIFICATION:
The personnel performing examination shall be certified in accordance with Welderco Industries’ written practice QP-19 latest revision for qualification and certification of NDE personnel.
3.0 EQUIPMENT:
Equipment shall be a magnetic yoke DA-200 serial # 21323,or DA-400 serial # 14231
4.0 EXAMINATION MEDIUM:
Finely divided ferromagnetic particles of high permeability and low retentivity shall be used. The color of the powder shall provide adequate contrast with the surface being examined.
5.0 SURFACE CONDITION:
5.1 Preparation:
Generally the as welded surface condition will provide adequate results.
5.1
Prior to magnetic particle examination, the surface to be examined and any adjacent area within at least 1 inch of the surface to be examined shall be dry and free of any dirt, grease, welding flux, spatter, oil or other extraneous matter that would interfere with the examination.
5.4
Cleaning may be accomplished by detergents, organic solvents, or Paint removers.
6.0 METHOD OF EXAMINATION:
The examination shall be made by the continuous method, applying the Magnetic Particles in a fine even cloud that drifts on the the area of examination. The removal of  the excess particles shall be done while the magnetizing current remains on.
7.0 TECHNIQUE:
7.1
Electromagnetic AC Yoke. This method shall only be applied to detect discontinuities that are open to the surface. Yoke leg spacing shall be between 4 inches minimum to 6 inches depending upon the limitation of the geometry in the area being examined. 
8.0 DIRECTION OF FIELD:
At least two separate examinations shall be carried out on each area. During the second examination the lines of magnetic flux shall be approximately perpendicular to those used during the first examination.  If the Examination Item is a plate there shall be an additional two examinations. Each end of the weld shall be examined with the yoke legs no more four inches in from the edge. The magnetic field shall be  perpendicular to the long axis of the weld.
9.0 EXAMINATION COVERAGE:
All examinations shall be conducted with a sufficient overlap to assure 100% coverage.
10.0 VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE OF THE TECHNIQUE:
One verification of field direction shall be done using a PIE gage for every four hours of inspection. For welds that terminate at  edges, the location of the PIE gage shall be two inches in from the edge. The location for all other welds shall be any place along the weld being examined. The gage is placed copper side up and held in contact with the component as the magnetic field and particles are applied. Indications of the leakage fields provide a visual representation of suspected defect direction.
11.0 DRY POWDER APPLICATION:
11.1
The dry powder shall be applied in such a manner that a light uniform dust like coating settles upon the surface of the part while it is being magnetized. The preferred application technique suspends the particle in air in such a manner that they reach the part surface being magnetized in a uniform cloud.
11.2 Excess Powder Removal:
Excess powder shall be removed with a light stream of air from a bulb syringe or other low source of pressure. The Yoke shall be energized while removing excess particles.
12.0 CALIBRATION OF THE EQUIPMENT:
12.1 
The Yoke shall be calibrated in accordance with ASME Section V Article 7 T-762.
13.0 INTERPRETATION OF INDICATION:
13.1
A minimum white light intensity of 1000 Lux (100 fc) is required to ensure adequate sensitivity during the examination and evaluation of indications. This shall be done using a light meter calibrated in accordance with procedure QP-202 (light meter calibration).
13.2
The interpretation shall determine if an indication is false, non relevant, or relevant.
13.3 Relevant Indication:
Relevant Indications are produced by leakage fields, which are the result of mechanical discontinuities. All relevant indications shall be evaluated to the requirements in paragraph 14.0.
13.4 Non-Relevant Indication:
Non Relevant Indications are indications that are revealed but that are not caused by actual weld discontinuities Some examples of these are part geometry, abrupt permeability changes. These require no further evaluation.
13.5 False Indications:
False Indications are not the result of magnetic flux leakages. Examples are particles held mechanically or by grease and oil to the surface. Areas showing false indications shall be adequately cleaned  and then reexamined.
13.6 Linear Indications:
A Linear Indication shall be defined as the one having a length greater than 3times the width.
13.7 Rounded Indications:
A Rounded Indication shall be defined as the one of circular or elliptical shape with the length equal to or less than 3 times the width.
13.8 Treatment of Non-relevant Indications:
When an indication is disposition as non-relevant no further action is needed.
14.0 ACCEPTANCE STANDARD:
14.1 All surfaces to be examined shall be free of :
14.1.1 Relevant linear indications;
14.1.2 Relevant rounded indications greater than 1/16 inch;
14.1.3 Four or more relevant rounded indications in a line separated by1/16 inch(1.6 mm) or less, edge to edge.
14.1.4 All Relevant rounded indications closer than four inches to any edge.
14.1.5 Visible undercut at any level.
15.0 REPAIR:
15.1 Defects four inches or more from any edge shall be repaired by grinding. The grinding shall be evenly blended for smooth transition to the surrounding areas. Maximum depth for grinding without weld repair is 20 % of the original base metal thickness.
15.2 Defects within four inches of any edge shall be repaired by grinding and welding. The grinding shall excavate the defect and prepare it for weld repair, maximum depth for weld repair is 50% of the original base metal. The repair welding shall be done in accordance with WPS# 1-2-F-R.
15.3 Undercut less than 3/32 shall be blended by grinding so that there is a smooth transition between the base metal and deposited weld metal. Undercut repaired in this fashion does no require reexamination.
15.4 Undercut greater than 3/32 shall be repaired by welding. The undercut shall be prepared for welding by use of wire brush. The welding of undercut shall be done with Gas Tungsten Arc Welding (GTAW) process and in accordance with WPS# 1-10-G-R
16.0 REEXAMINATION OF REPAIR AREAS:
After the defect has been excavated ,except undercut less than 3/32, the area shall be reexamined by the magnetic particle method to insure that the defect has been completely removed.
If welding repairs have been made, the repaired area shall be blended into the surrounding surface so as to avoid sharp notches, crevices, or corners and reexamined by the magnetic particle method.
17.0 DEMAGNETISATION:
Demagnetization is not necessary.
18.0 FINAL CLEANING:
When the inspection is concluded, cleaning of the parts shall be done by blowing the magnetic particles off with compressed air.
19.0 Reporting:
Magnetic Particle Inspection Report shall be recorded on form MT-001.

COMMENTS?

Mikeqc1,

It’s quite nice but …

5.1  Prior to magnetic particle examination, the surface to be examined and any adjacent area within at least 1 inch of the surface to be examined shall be dry and free of any dirt, grease, welding flux, spatter, oil or other extraneous matter that would interfere with the examination.

Probably minor but, is your part permeable or porous?
Would the word(s) “with-in 1 inch of either side” of the ‘weld’, ‘weld bead’, ‘area’, ‘area of interest’ or, within one inch of the edge of plate(s) be better choices?

14.1.5 Visible undercut at any level.
Shouldn’t this be 14.1.1?
If it doesn’t pass visual, why go on?

OR,
Better yet!

Move it on up.
From 14.x.x. to … 5.1 All parts subject to magnetic particle inspection shall pass visual inspection per ….

There is nothing that I like better in this world than to be in the middle of no-where with the specs in one hand and my gear in the other, looking at a part or parts that should have been re-worked or rejected before I even got there!! 

Jeez, inspectors sure get cranky as they age!!! 

Cheers,
jb

MDK,

“The parts are in the as welded condition.”

So, your area of interest is the weld bead and adjacent area no?
Then, be specific!

5.1 Prior to magnetic particle examination, the surface to be examined and adjacent area within 1 inch of either side of the weld bead and, within one inch of the end of the plate(s) shall be dry and free of any dirt, grease, welding flux, spatter, oil or other extraneous matter that would interfere with the examination. 
Now, the poor Level I trainee knows EXACTLY what areas to prep!

“Why do you ask if it’s porous?”
Because you lumped too many ‘surfaces’ together … A sponge can be dry within 1 inch of “the surface”.

“I think im ok with lumping visual requirements with MT requirements because MT is an enhanced visual inspection. “

No, you are NOT ok lumping them together … If it doesn’t pass “VISUAL” it shouldn’t leave the bench or weld area until it meets YOUR minimum criteria!

VT, MT, PT, RT, UT, etc, they ARE separate!

Remember that the welder is the FIRST inspector and should have “Visual Inspection Criteria” before he or she puts down the first bead.

THEN, use “enhanced visual inspection” to ascertain if there is something the eye doesn’t or can’t see.

Sorry if I seem a bit critical but, as I said …
There is nothing that I like better in this world than to be in the middle of no-where with the specs in one hand and my gear in the other, looking at a part or parts that should have been re-worked or rejected before I even got there!! 

Cheers,
jb