Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu Integrity honeypot

Author Topic: Integrity  (Read 49680 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Higgs

  • SRO
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1942
  • Karma: 1284
  • Gender: Male
  • Life has a melody...
Re: Integrity
« Reply #50 on: Jun 30, 2011, 04:43 »
The name of this thread is integrity, not stupidity.  SRO was stupid.  The EDO was stupid.  Both of them blew off basic watchstanding principles over arrogance.

Agreed. The SRO should never have let him put his hand on the switch. The SRO doesn't get a free pass in this.
"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.” - Ted Nugent

drayer54

  • Guest
Re: Integrity
« Reply #51 on: Jun 30, 2011, 05:12 »
Agreed. The SRO should never have let him put his hand on the switch. The SRO doesn't get a free pass in this.
We don't know that he did. The old line to let the people who get paid more take the fall doesn't get you out of this one... I would hope anyways.

This sort of thing always seemed to hit everyone around it though and often times the results of who would be deemed at fault wouldn't exactly be logical anyways.


Offline Higgs

  • SRO
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1942
  • Karma: 1284
  • Gender: Male
  • Life has a melody...
Re: Integrity
« Reply #52 on: Jun 30, 2011, 08:43 »
We don't know that he did. The old line to let the people who get paid more take the fall doesn't get you out of this one... I would hope anyways.

This sort of thing always seemed to hit everyone around it though and often times the results of who would be deemed at fault wouldn't exactly be logical anyways.



Yeah I didn't mean that we know or don't know that he did, just that that was clearly his attitude. He was being a douche and thought that if he sat back and let the EDO do it, that he wouldn't be in trouble. I hope he was wrong.
« Last Edit: Jun 30, 2011, 08:44 by TheHiggs »
"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.” - Ted Nugent

Offline DDMurray

  • Heavy User
  • ****
  • Posts: 430
  • Karma: 994
  • Gender: Male
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: Integrity
« Reply #53 on: Jul 01, 2011, 04:58 »
Not knowing what really happened, I see several alternatives:
1.  SRO explains why they should wait to open the valve.  EDO disagrees, assuming no plant limits would be violated the SRO should carry out the order.  If he wouldn't, get him relieved.
2.  SRO explains why they should wait to open the valve.  EDO disagrees.  Call the EDPO.  Get his take.  EDO makes final call.
3.  SRO explains why they should wait to open the valve.  EDO disagrees.  SRO refuses for plant safety.  EDO calls EDPO or calls the ENG.  EDO makes the call.
4.  SRO explains why they should wait to open the valve.  EDO disagrees.  SRO refuses for plant safety.  EDO calls ENG.  EDO gets relieved. 

In all these cases, references should be reviewed including old logs to see how much lining up for sample cools down the plant.  In all these cases, the EDPO should also be consulted.  As EDMC I would (recommend) remove the SRO from watchstanding and insist to ENG/CO that same be done to EDO.  Both are a$$-clowns.  I would also use this opportunity to gather theory to practice data and train the crew.  I know I already have two volunteers to carry it out. ;)
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
T. Roosevelt

Offline Already Gone

  • Curmudgeon At Large
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1769
  • Karma: 3388
  • Gender: Male
  • Did I say that out loud?
Re: Integrity
« Reply #54 on: Jul 04, 2011, 12:34 »
Okay, here is my take o this particular situation.

The SRO was engaging the EDO in a contest of wills.  He was wrong to do it, because he showed no justification for refusing an order, other than his own opinion.  If he had offered a reason other than his opinion, he might have convinced the young officer to agree with him and change the order.

Here's the hook.  What is "un-necessary" cool down to the SRO is a matter of opinion, as long as the additional cooling of the RCS does not cause the plant to violate the BFPL curve or some other procedural limit.  If such a violation were the imminent result of opening the valve early, simply calling the EDO's attention to that fact would have been enough.  The RadCon Manual prohibits "un-necessary" cooldown, because it results in un-necessary radioactive waste from the addition of makeup water to maintain PZR level which will have to be discharged on the subsequent heat up.  If the added time with the valve open would have necessitated charging which would not have been needed otherwise, then this would have been a procedural violation. Again, this could have been pointed out to the EDO, who would most likely have agreed and rescinded the order.

There is nothing in this example which shows that either would have been the case or that the SRO was clear that one of the two would have been the case.  All we have here is a situation where the SRO refused an order without justification.  If he really had a reason to believe that opening the valve would result in a violation of any procedure, then allowing the EDO to open it would be dereliction of his duty.

In procedural matters, it is the duty of the SRO to advise and inform the EDO, whose decision is not subject to question at that point, and whose orders are to be obeyed.

In matters of judgment or opinion, the judgment of the officer takes precedence over the judgment of an enlisted watchstander.

So, either way, this SRO was wrong.  He should be DQ and perhaps written up.
"To be content with little is hard; to be content with much, impossible." - Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach

Offline spekkio

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
  • Karma: 188
Re: Integrity
« Reply #55 on: Jul 04, 2011, 09:18 »
Not knowing what really happened, I see several alternatives:
1.  SRO explains why they should wait to open the valve.  EDO disagrees, assuming no plant limits would be violated the SRO should carry out the order.  If he wouldn't, get him relieved.
2.  SRO explains why they should wait to open the valve.  EDO disagrees.  Call the EDPO.  Get his take.  EDO makes final call.
3.  SRO explains why they should wait to open the valve.  EDO disagrees.  SRO refuses for plant safety.  EDO calls EDPO or calls the ENG.  EDO makes the call.
4.  SRO explains why they should wait to open the valve.  EDO disagrees.  SRO refuses for plant safety.  EDO calls ENG.  EDO gets relieved.  

In all these cases, references should be reviewed including old logs to see how much lining up for sample cools down the plant.  In all these cases, the EDPO should also be consulted.  As EDMC I would (recommend) remove the SRO from watchstanding and insist to ENG/CO that same be done to EDO.  Both are a$$-clowns.  I would also use this opportunity to gather theory to practice data and train the crew.  I know I already have two volunteers to carry it out. ;)
+100
Quote
Ever heard of a BFPL curve? It's too bad the khaki(s) didn't know better.
I'm not trying to start a khaki vs. blue shirt war here. This is full retard on both parties, and a huge failure of leadership on the EDO's part. I don't know how experienced/nuke savvy the EDO was, but he should've known better than to touch the RPCP. However, the SRO should be using his experience to help the duty section get through the day with no mishaps, rather than using it to to try to prove he's smarter than watch officers.

FWIW, I have heard of BFPL. Given our normal S/D bands, I find it hard to believe that opening CP-Q 5-10 min earlier would've put you in violation of the curve, especially at 6-7am on a Saturday with the Engineer at home and probably asleep. I find it equally hard to believe that you were anywhere close to violating CDR limits.
« Last Edit: Jul 04, 2011, 09:28 by spekkio »

Offline Higgs

  • SRO
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 1942
  • Karma: 1284
  • Gender: Male
  • Life has a melody...
Re: Integrity
« Reply #56 on: Jul 04, 2011, 09:27 »
I think we all agree, they were both wrong.

My issue is with Blue Shirts like this that think they are totally innocent in this sort of thing. It is an attitude that needs to be crushed. I have a feeling the attitude is more pervasive today than it was even 5 years ago when I was in.
"How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic.” - Ted Nugent

Offline spekkio

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 629
  • Karma: 188
Re: Integrity
« Reply #57 on: Jul 04, 2011, 09:33 »
Yea, and unforunately the newly minted EOOW's don't get the training to deal with it until after the fact or later in their tour.

I had a newly qualified EOOW tell me that a senior ET1 told him that he refused to draw a S/G sample because he couldn't find the procedure for the extended purge (I wholeheartedly believe said ET1, a RT who has already gone through a deployment, knew exactly where the procedure was and decided to be difficult that day, as he has a history of such things). The EOOW then told me how he spent like 30 minutes proving the procedure to said ET1.

I asked him why he didn't have the offgoing guy relieve and have said watchstander report to EDMC for training. He said "oh, I never thought of that."

D'oh.

I'm sure that some other guys have stories of watch officers trying to prove how smart they are to their watchteams, too. When you're so "smart" that you feel like you need to prove it to your watchteam -- regardless of your uniform and rank -- then you're really the biggest dumbass on the boat.
« Last Edit: Jul 04, 2011, 09:51 by spekkio »

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2024 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?