Meter Reading Training

[ALARA LOU]

Help, I went to the Bartlett home page but the link would not work to get me to the “survey meter reading” practice exercise.

[Rennhack]

I had no problm accessing it on the Bartlett page.

I put a copy of it on NukeWorker, which might work better for you.  The file is large, about 2 MB.

Here is a link:

http://www.nukeworker.com/study/hp/meter_test.pdf

[ALARA LOU]

I was able to access it today on the Bartlett page using another computer.
But I thank you for the help & quick response.

[Already Gone]

You know it really is great when you have folks that are on top of the game.  But if you gauge the quality of a tech, Jr or Sr, on whether they read a meter consistently, everytime, well,,,.   I remember once having to resurvey inside the bio shield at Sequoyah because the previous survey for the our shift was <2 mrem/hr.  Cold/hot legs, PRT, RHR suction line, everywhere.  They had a copy of the last days routine to go by and the whole nine yards.  They could read the meter just fine and it would have even been better if the batteries hadn't been knocked loose before they started the survey.  It just didn't register in the meter between their ears I guess.  I always like to get a side of common sense to go along with that plate of "survey says" at my control point.  My 2 cents but it might save a dime.

AMEN

[Already Gone]

See there?!?!  It proves my point.  She screwed up reading the meter; but far worse than that - she AND the Sr. tech who reviewed the survey failed to have a clue about what the readings were supposed to be.  As a junior tech, she should have been expected to make just such an error.  Although I must point out that Junior techs no longer do things like containment surveys.  Therefore they become senior techs without any real experience. 
This is where the problem lies!!  Reading a meter incorrectly is no problem unless you don't understand that there is something wrong with that incorrect reading.  If she or her supervisor couldn't recognize that 100-120 mR/hr everywhere was an anomaly, then it doesn't matter if she could read the meter right.  Let's look at the hypothetical:  What if, as you correctly assumed, those readings were real?  What if she'd had the meter on the right scale?  Shouldn't something have been done about that BEFORE the next shift came in and caught the error?   What prevented that verification from being done the instant that the survey was reviewed by supervision? 
We're giving Jr. HP's a couple of years experience in dose-rating trash and guarding IPM's and then turn them loose on High Rad job coverage as if all those trash runs had prepared them for that.  Giving everybody a quiz on looking at meter faces is simply NOT the cure - or even an accurate diagnostic tool - for this lack of experience and understanding.

[RDTroja]

Hold on, Troy, no one ever said this 'test' was a reliable measure of a good tech. It is, however, a reliable indicator of a potential major problem. Every tech I know has been on the wrong scale at one time or another... the good ones recognize it and the bad (or at least inexperienced) ones don't. When a junior does it, that is a learning opportunity. When a senior does it and does not recognize it (or does not recognize the junior's error) *that* is a major problem. Being on the wrong scale is easy... recognizing that dose rates are off by a factor of 10 should also be easy.

The issue is not what happens temporarily in the field under a little pressure. This is a classroom test that checks the technician's ability to perform a basic job function. Performing that basic function is only one very small part of the whole job, but without the base knowledge, the rest of the job falls apart. If someone has so much 'test anxiety' or so little faith in his/her abilities that they fail this test, I think that calls into question their ability to do their job properly.

Just as an aside, I have worked with quite a few juniors that are getting real field experience. Juniors still do surveys in some places. Like anything else, some are given more opportunities than others, but some turn down the chance to do field work because they are more comfortable at a control point. Those people should remain there for the rest of their careers as lifetime juniors. I have recently taught a class of junior techs and am getting ready for some pre-outage junior training for contractors. The opportunities exist, but are not nearly as available as they should be.

[hamsamich]

I agree with Troja.  While not a good way to test a tech and assign them a level of competency, like many of the people in this thread are doing, you could use the test as a tool and then find out why if somebody really trashed it.  Sort of like IQ tests were meant to be used, but not how they are used. The problem is many tools get misused, like the IQ test, but if used correctly I could see the value in a test like this as something like a QC hold point.

[Already Gone]

Hey!  Give the test!  I don't have a problem with giving this test to techs.  I have a problem with the very high probability that it will be used as proof of something.  It might help you discover a problem, but it might not.  As long as the test is used as a broad screen, I have no problem with it.  I just believe that it will certainly be misused.
There is training, and there is documentation of training.  All too often the two are not related.
CBT's are another of my most hated things.  Both are snapshots of a moment in time.  Somebody manages to get 8 of 10 right ONCE out of numerous tries, and the whole nuclear industry declares that person qualified.  In the past year, I have witnessed major errors by "trained" individuals - whose training consisted of sitting in front of a video screen and picking multiple-choice answers.
Nobody wants to spend the time (translate that to $$$money$$) to train people properly.  Every nuke plant and DOE site wants to hire prople who already have the training documented in their records.  When they have to gauge that training for themselves, they frequently opt for the cheapest method.

[RDTroja]

The only thing this test can be *proof* of is an inability, not a talent. Will it be misused? Of course it will. Is the NUF misused? I would place money on it.

As for the training, a lot of what you say is true, but I am currently participating in something  better than that. There is actually training (classroom style, with instructor, lesson plan, exam and documentation) being given here for juniors, house and contractors. I would ceratainly like to see more of it, but at least there is some. Yes, the seniors are supposed to show up qualified, and no, some of them are not adequately so. The tools available to screen them out before they hit the RCA are not adequate, largely due to a lack of time. Hopefully they will be identified and maybe then something can be done (at least at the site where the identification takes place.) We are not planning to use this 'test' to screen people... I just hope we don't get any of the seniors that can't pass it.

As far as opting for the cheapest choice... imagine my surprise.

[ramdog_1]

Test them all and flunk them out if they can not pass. No excuse for this.
It is sad when you have a 3.1 sr who can not tell you the dif. between an RO2 and RO2A.
I can see how things have changed in the old days a tech spent time out with the crews today most sit at a control point. true to fact wehn you came to a site you did quals on items as will.
you used to get a lot of hands on training back in the 80s.
when in doubt send out the JR. HP.

[alphadude]

sounds like a lot of programatic failures going on that lead to the human error. this may be a situation where u got to blame the game and not the players. if someone thinks they are in a 100-200mr field what are they suppose to do no matter what? read their dosimetry on a frequent basis, even though they are HPs, you still get verification of dose.  It is everyones responsibility to immediately correct these situations if you see them in the field-failure to do so .. well u know the story.  too much sniveling goin on... and a whole lot of finger pointing.. if you see programatic failures such as this-report them to the corrective actions people- that will drive the situation to improvement. someone cant read a meter- i would say that is a condition adverse to quality- DID YOU REPORT IT???

[stownsend]

I was the first person at the contaiment entrance and was required to brief refuel personnel etc. When I saw the survey I called my house supervisor for my area and dressed out to verify the dose rates. When the dose rates were off by a factor of 10, I followed up with a correct survey and called out to allow people in to go to work.Note most times the containment was empty at 0600 so there was no turn over.

[SloGlo]

iffen yinz can't reed a meter, whatcha gonna dew, count da clicks?  i don't care where ya work as a hp tech.  iffen ya can't read da meter, don't work around me!

[PWHoppe]

iffen ya can't read da meter, don't work around me!

Ditto

[Limited Quanity]

iffen yinz can't reed a meter, whatcha gonna dew, count da clicks?  i don't care where ya work as a hp tech.  iffen ya can't read da meter, don't work around me!

If you can read the meter and you think it's just a lovely accessory in your hand to your c-zone fashion ware,,,.  If you don't have a clue what to do, just stay in the truck.

[hamsamich]

exactly

[SloGlo]

If you can read the meter and you think it's just a lovely accessory in your hand to your c-zone fashion ware,,,.  If you don't have a clue what to do, just stay in the truck.

oh hail know!  it ain't noe fashun axesserie!  butt da ro2(a) makes a fine pillow.

[Limited Quanity]

oh hail know!  it ain't noe fashun axesserie!  butt da ro2(a) makes a fine pillow.

Don't forget to put your plastic bag pillow case around your pillow too.  I wonder if they still teach that in meter reading training 101?   

[SloGlo]

Don't forget to put your plastic bag pillow case around your pillow too.  I wonder if they still teach that in meter reading training 101?   

mebbe dat's why sum sr hp kant reed a meter..... dey bin bagging dem in yellow four sew long, 'n nebber look at da face.

[Laning]

Stories on mistakes being made and the heroic tales of recognizing the mistakes are both irrelevant to this discussion in my opinion. Mistakes will be made by everyone, thats a fact. If it makes you feel good about yourself to point out mistakes others have made in the course of doing their job, knock yourself out.

This issue is about demonstrating your implied qualifications in a classroom setting. Its about a screening tool thats no different than any other form of entrance exam. In fact its no different than any other certification. Does getting a teaching degree make you a good teacher. I think we all know the answer to that. But do you want your kids being taught by someone who hasnt demonstrated the basic necessities of teaching? More so, do you want to pay them? No written or practical exam we could ever come up with is gonna be able to predict how well someone applies that knowledge in real time.

This test is nothing more than a filter. It attempts to determine if you can do what your resume says you can. It serves to justify paying someone for a service. If you can't demonstrate that ability you don't get a pass. I'd love to be called a CHP, I'd love even more to be paid as one. Think they'll let me in if I can only pass Part 1? 

!!

[B.PRESGROVE]

   Good Point.

[illegalsmile]

Proficiency with the instruments used to be just the beginning of the 'qualification' process when you came into a new plant. It was frequently followed by an oral board where you got to deal with "what would you do...?" and "what if...?"
I believe the triad of the written theory exam (NUF), the Instrument Proficiency Eval and the Oral Board did a pretty good job of indicating a potential tech's ability to do the job.
These very, IMHO, useful tools in evaluating a potential tech have fallen by the wayside as plants compete with each other to see how close to the scheduled shut down date they can bring us in.

[UncaBuffalo]

I finally had a chance to take this test at a site...no problems, but I like tests. 

As a group, we (all 15-year to 40-year seniors) scored only 81%...OUCH! 




and, they were giving us 60 seconds per slide, so time was no excuse...

[LaFeet]

mebbe dat's why sum sr hp kant reed a meter..... de
y bin bagging dem in yellow four sew long, 'n nebber look at da face.

They have faces? 

[justatech]

They have faces? 

I couldn't qoute everyone here but I will say this - joke all you want......................... .
I know of a few sites that would like to cut out Decon / Jr Techs.........what they want to do is hire the labor force out of the local union hall - train them to be a Jr Tech / Decon.............for just their ourtage that may come around every year or so......

Is is cheaper to hire them...............NO...... Bartlett is cheaper...................... .with experienced seasonal workers........I can hear it now.............."Hey you labor person after you are done carrying the buckets and scaffold for the carpenters can you decon these areas and all of these surveys need to be completed - HRA - yeah well you had one week of training to be a Jr Rp Tech - you can handle it................

Do you really think I am going to send any work group into a work area surveyed by a labor/decon/jr rp one week training and let them loose.......................H ELL NO.... I will rely on the seasoned JR RP techs that will spend time on their education to make it to SR RP - not a local out of the hall that thinks they can do all of it to last longer on the job - and have no intention of pursuing this career path becasue their union hall pays them more per hour than Bartlett plus all the bennies..................

So I want you to think about this - train the Bartlett Decon / JR RP techs on instruments - ones that really want to continue on because they enjoy this field.......................o r would you prefer to train the ones that really do not give a XXXX - it's just another tag on to their job for this outage only.........think about it .........how much time do you really want to explain when you need it yesterday..................

I know this is off base from the jokes about meter training - I remember when I was a brand new JR tech..............I had to work on this.....................for some reason the frisker was my problem...........not the ion chambers or anything else..........maybe it was flipping back in forth - ccpm to dpm - depending upon if it was a personal contamination or a smear for a survey..............simple things like that..............

Thank you Eric for posting this presentation for all of us to learn and teach by. I have already helped a few new Deconners that wanted to move up in the ranks. We need more power point presentations - perhaps if you can get some from facilities prior to an outage as to what they plan on doing in accordance with their procedures - that would help....................if someone is not going to that outage - it's just an informational thing - but if they were and could review for common knowledge participation purposes..................... .....okay maybe I should have been a teacher