Career Path > Nuclear Operator
ACAD 10-001, guide to licensing qualifications.
jwhite:
He's in a license class with other NPOIT's (RO) and SROIT's (SRO).
Fermi2:
That wasn't my question. Did they issue the license? My point is you can go to license class your first day on site. The NRC holds licenses in abeyance until you get the right amount of time EXCLUDING training.
ATLNuke:
--- Quote from: Higgs on Jan 30, 2012, 10:34 ---Engineering and training are the ones I see most often. I also know one or two maintenance supervisors that crossed over as well. You can also go in as a degreed NLO and direct to SRO but there are other variables that come into play with that.
Justin
--- End quote ---
I'm curious if anyone who's experienced in the industry can give me a good explanation to this.
Say there are two equally qualified kids graduating from college with an engineering or other technical degree. One becomes an NLO, the other goes engineering. According to ACAD (if I'm reading it right), the kid who goes engineering could be qualified for ILT in as little as 18 months. The kid who goes in as an NLO isn't eligible until 18 months AFTER becoming fully qualified (~30-42 months total.) Now arguments aside about whether either of this is enough experience to go to ILT (more experience is obviously better in both situations), wouldn't the experience as an NLO be more applicable to becoming an SRO? So why would you need more time as an NLO (even if ~a year or two is unqualified time)?
In addition, why is the "Power Plant Experience" (eg engineering) applicable to both PWR and BWR, while qualified NLO experience is only applicable to a comparable plant (ie PWR OR BWR)?
ChiefRocscooter:
The problem with your question is you are asking for a reason as to why someone way back when sent up the "min" standard. You do realize that every case is going to be individually evaluated by the site and the INPO assumption is that if we give you a bare minimum you will put a little buffer on it. Does not always happen but the min is set to keep the majority at a higher standard. Think of it as speed limit of 65, heck we all drive 70ish now why not make the limit 70? because then many will drive 75!
Now as to the logic behind the question of course the 18 month fully qualified Engineer degreed NLO would likely have "more" experience that would be applicable to direct SRO, but how often (show of hands here) will plants send a 18 month right out of college engineer to class as direct SRO, not the nlo engineer, or ex-navy who got degree after navy but the true ~23 year old right out of college engineer? My guess based on what I have seen in my limited time is chances are 0 but I will say slim to none cause there is an exception to every rule/case!
So to answer your question directly; No, no one can give you a good explanation, just opinions! :)
ATLNuke:
Yes, I was trying to word my question very carefully. Like you said, every site and company will obviously have their own standards for who they pick to go to ILT, and hopefully it's very strict. I was just trying to understand the underlying logic behind the ACAD, since that's technically the "minimum".
However, from my (very short) experience, I've actually seen people be picked up for class with very minimum requirements. Maybe it's just my site that needs personnel, but it seems like if you meet the requirements to go to ILT, they'll push you in that direction.
I in no way regret my decision to start at NLO. I've learned so much more in the last year that my degree never covered in the way a plant actually operates. I was just curious why the ACAD is the way it is I guess.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version