This is the third of a three-part series on professional ethics in NDT. This article originally appeared in ASNT’s The NDT Technician newsletter in 2009. It is reprinted here in its entirety.
For nondestructive testing to function successfully as a system, there must be:
- a precise definition of the product that is required,
- strict adherence to specifications,
- adequate testing of the product, and
- adequate supervision of the testing.
Underpinning these requirements (and the ultimate success of the system), are basic human behaviors such as honesty, discipline, and communication.
Employer Attitude and Support
As President Truman was reputed to have said, “The buck stops here!”
The employer sets the tone for ethical behavior within its company. Professional ethics may be clearly stated as company policy but, more importantly, it is demonstrated by the attitudes and actions of the employer and company managers. If an NDT employer is somehow beholden to the customer, it becomes readily apparent to the NDT technician how the desires of the customer are to be met. The end result is that the critical nature of the decisions and data produced by NDT can become compromised.
The following is an example of how negative attitudes are transmitted. If a customer complains that an NDT technician is unnecessarily delaying production by rejecting parts and the technician’s manager states or implies that the technician should “lighten up” on rejection, the tone for unethical behavior is set. Terminating or transferring the technician to another location is also an indicator of company attitude. However, when upper management clearly and unambiguously supports the technician’s judgment and ability, the tone for integrity is set. Employer support enables the NDT technician to make proper accept/reject judgments based solely upon the appropriate standards or specifications.
Attitudes of Coworkers
Coworkers can also influence the behavior or actions of a technician. An inexperienced technician or trainee working alongside a journeyman technician not only learns about the NDT method or technique being demonstrated, but also about the integrity of the mentor. Thus, the journeyman’s work habits—be they sloppy work practices, avoidance of difficult locations, being induced to change or report false examination results—set the tone for the trainee’s future work habits. The outcome of poor training will be poor examination results. A technician cannot apply balanced decision making without knowledge and proper training.
Employer-Based Certification
SNT-TC-1A is a recommended practice for employer-based certification that requires the employer to develop a written practice describing how they will train, determine sufficient experience, test, and certify the employees in NDT methods. In addition, the employer must maintain documentation of all of the above. Unfortunately, the documentation is seldom audited, and this affords some employers an opportunity to certify under-qualified technicians by “pencil whipping” their certification.
Increasingly, customers are requiring performance demonstrations at the work site before allowing technicians to conduct nondestructive tests that will result in critical judgments and reports. However, results of the performance demonstrations are uniformly poor—in the range of 50% failure—reflecting unacceptable training and certification practices by many employers.
Fraudulent Reporting
The author has personal knowledge of the following incident of fraudulent reporting.
An inspection company contracted by a petroleum refinery was to conduct automated ultrasonic examination of circumferential and longitudinal seam welds on pressure vessels that had been in service for some time. In order to access the welds for inspection, a combination of scaffolding and a boom lift would be required. The customer supplied the scaffolding and the lift.
The technician responsible for conducting the inspections was given training in how to operate the lift vehicle and was appropriately certified in its use. Despite some interruptions due to the limited availability of the lift, the work was eventually completed.
A two-person operation, the work required one assistant technician to operate the scanner and an experienced technician to record the data. In the ensuing review of the job site conducted by the NDT supervisor, it quickly became apparent that data had been provided for locations that did not have scaffolding and that were not accessible with the lift.
At the supervisor’s recommendation, the NDT provider and the client also revisited the data and work site. They too concluded that the data provided had not been obtained from an actual examination of the vessel.
Outcome Demonstrates Value of Correct Action
When interviewed, the technician admitted that he had reused scans by simply changing the location identification. The technician also stated that it was his understanding the work needed to be completed within a certain time frame and that, because there were no discontinuities in the areas he did inspect, he felt it was safe to assume the remaining welds were “clean.” Clearly the results were falsified, and the technician was entirely culpable. But, what about the assistant? He too knew test results were being falsified. The assistant stated that he was intimidated by the seniority of the technician conducting the inspections. The following corrective actions were taken:
- The technician responsible for conducting the scans was terminated “for cause.”
- The assistant was given time off without pay and provided remedial training.
- The examinations were repeated correctly and completely.
- The NDT provider assumed all costs for reinspection.
As a result of the corrective actions, significant defect indications were detected in the areas where false results had been provided. The corrective actions taken by the NDT contractor reassured the customer of his contractor’s integrity and the customer continued to use the contractor’s services.
The assistant went on to become a capable and reliable NDT technician. In addition, the events as they transpired served to demonstrate to all the NDT technicians that the company expected correct, reproducible, and reliable examination information from them at all times. Equally important, the NDT technicians learned they could expect the support of their employer in obtaining it.
________
This article originally appeared in Vol. 7, No. 3 of The NDT Technician. Ronald T. Nisbet, retired, was with International Energy Services Company at the time of original publication.
The NDT Technician, available online, provides information valuable to NDT practitioners and a platform for discussion of issues relevant to the profession. Topics covered includes NDT practice, employment, relevant ASNT activities, and more. For additional information on TNT, or to read current and back issues, visit the periodicals section of the ASNT website.