The ASNT Level III Certificate and the Nuclear Job

Nothing yet - the ASNT certificate is a central certification, not an employer certification. In SNT-TC-1A and CP-189 systems, certification is an act of the employer, based on the written practice. The ASNT card is evidence that a general examination was passed by an independent body; it does not authorise him to perform or report examinations for your company.

Before he touches the nuclear component:

1. Experience verified, not asserted. Obtain written confirmation from the previous employer(s) of the six years of UT experience - dates, methods, product forms, procedures, and whether it was supervised. Self-declared experience is not acceptable evidence.
2. Method examinations by this employer. Level II MT and PT from another company do not transfer. He must be examined to your written practice: general, specific (your procedures, your product, your acceptance criteria), and practical. The ASNT Level III UT certificate may be credited toward the general examination for UT only if the written practice explicitly says so.
3. Nuclear-specific qualification. Section III work requires the employer's certification plus qualification to the construction code's requirements, and the client's contract adds CP-189. CP-189 is more prescriptive than SNT-TC-1A - among other things it constrains how Level IIIs are examined and how certification is administered - so the written practice must be revised and approved before he is certified against it. Certifying him against an unreconciled written practice creates a documentation nonconformance that will surface at audit.
4. Independence of examination. Having his direct supervisor administer the examinations is a conflict of interest. Either a second Level III from the organisation administers them, or the practical examination is administered by an outside agency. Document who examined whom.

Until all four are closed, he can be supervised and can observe; he cannot report results.

The record is out of date and possibly below requirement, and your written practice is the real defect.

• Near vision. SNT-TC-1A practice is an annual near-vision check at the distance used in the examination (commonly 12 in. or 30 cm), to the acuity stated in the written practice - typically Jaeger 1 or equivalent, with the near card and distance specified. A 14-month-old record fails the annual interval. Jaeger 2 at 12 in. may or may not be acceptable; it is acceptable only if the written practice says Jaeger 2 is the requirement, which would be unusually permissive. Under a Jaeger 1 requirement he does not currently qualify.
• Colour perception. 'Ishihara 14-plate, 12 correct' is a screening result, not an acceptance criterion. The written practice must state the test, the pass threshold, and the interval. The governing functional requirement is the ability to distinguish contrast between the colours used in the method - which matters for PT and MT, and far less for UT.

Practical consequences:

• UT tomorrow: possible only after a current near-vision check to the written-practice standard plus the certifications from Task 1. UT does not turn on colour discrimination, so a colour-perception question alone should not block UT - but the near-vision interval still does.
• PT/MT: both near vision and the colour-contrast criterion must be met and documented, and MT/PT employer examinations completed.
• Correct the root cause: amend the written practice now to specify the near-vision test, distance, acuity, annual interval, colour test, threshold and record retention. Then check the vision status of every certified person in the department - the new hire's 14-month record is unlikely to be unique.

Written-practice essentials to add or correct:

• Vision: near vision at 12 in. to the stated acuity, annually; colour perception by a named test with a stated pass threshold, at the stated interval; records retained.
• Experience credit rules: what counts, how verified, who signs off; credit for experience at another employer; experience required per method and per level.
• Examination structure: general, specific and practical for each level and method, who administers each, and the pass marks; explicit statement of how a central certification (ASNT Level III) is credited - for the general examination only, subject to the employer's specific and practical examinations.
• Independence and records: no Level III may administer the examinations of a person they directly supervise; certification records, examination records and vision records retained for the period the contract and code require.
• Code and contract addenda: a clause stating that where the contract invokes additional requirements (CP-189, Section III), those requirements are incorporated and the written practice is amended accordingly.

Resolving SNT-TC-1A vs CP-189 for this client:

• They are not competitors to be chosen between; the contract requires CP-189, so CP-189 governs for this work. Where CP-189 is silent, the written practice (SNT-TC-1A-based) fills the gap; where CP-189 is more prescriptive, it prevails.
• The mechanism is a written-practice revision that explicitly adopts CP-189 for the work covered by this contract, approved by your Level III and submitted to the client for acceptance before certification.
• Do not solve it by having two certificates float around for the same person; solve it by making the written practice say which regime applies to which work, and by keeping the certification record consistent with the written practice in force on the date of certification. That is what an auditor and an ANI will look for, and it is also the only way to know whether this man is actually qualified tomorrow morning.