Common mistakes/weaknesses in new RCTs that compromise safety

[S T I G]

Looking for examples of reoccurring mistakes or areas of weakness you commonly see in new RCTs. (certain calculations, Donning and Doffing, compliance??)

[BetaAnt]

Some can't read a meter (get confused on the X1, X10, x100 ...).
Half can't figure out an air sample.
The other half and most of the first half can't calculate MDA, MDC, chi square, and other statistical measurements.

The tests are now multiple guess instead of essay or fill in the blanks.

This is why most plants accept ANSI 18.1 techs. The knowledge-base 3.1 techs have died, retired or moved on. Can't build or run a house working 4-6 months a year.

[S T I G]

Some can't read a meter (get confused on the X1, X10, x100 ...).
Half can't figure out an air sample.
The other half and most of the first half can't calculate MDA, MDC, chi square, and other statistical measurements.

The tests are now multiple guess instead of essay or fill in the blanks.

This is why most plants accept ANSI 18.1 techs. The knowledge-base 3.1 techs have died, retired or moved on. Can't build or run a house working 4-6 months a year.

Really? That is fundamental stuff.....

[61nomad]

BetaAnt says :This is why most plants accept ANSI 18.1 techs. The knowledge-base 3.1 techs have died, retired or moved on. Can't build or run a house working 4-6 months a year.

I believe that plants are 18.1 or 3.1 depending on what year they were licensed. But I agree that the academics have been dumbed down significantly for contract techs over the last 20-30 years. You don't have to know all that stuff anymore to work outages. All they want is job coverage skills. I would hope that everyone can read a meter, however!

[cedugger]

Well, worked with a guy at SRS who didn't like to turn on his meter when he was supposed to be looking for Pu-238...but he was a seasoned tech and you asked about new guys.

I haven't worked in commercial NP, but what I've noticed in the areas I have worked is a weak understanding of the fundamentals. For much of my career, I took for granted the depth of knowledge on fundamentals that the Navy expects, or at least expected in the early 90's. There is a difference between training a future HP and training a simple meter swinger. Having a full and detailed command over how our meters operate is a must, in my opinion, which is why I'm so disappointed when I meet a tech who doesn't take the time to know why certain meters/technologies function and respond the way they do.

Something BetaAnt mentioned was techs not knowing how to interpret their meter. At SRS, we had a tech ready to call in an unposted high rad area all because he misread his own meter. Following behind people and double checking their work gets under a lot of people's skin, but my doing so saved him from looking like a dipshit to the who RP section.

The "do we really need to know all this" mentality is a cancer in the HP tech world. As an instructor, I prefer not to entertain such questions, and afterwards am often inclined to throw more crap against the wall...continuing the beating until morale improves!

[S T I G]

Well, the A.A.S. degree in Radiation Protection Technology that I just graduated with is being axed at the school unfortunately due in large part to a lack of overall interest/slightly political crap, but the instructors that we had teaching us, as I am figuring out more and more, really did do an incredible job at educating us on a vast variety of different areas in health physics. Even more important is the hands on experience that they offered to us every day of class. Having to pass the DOE Core and taking the 40-hr OSHA HAZWOPER Cert. were just a couple of requirements in graduating along with constant lab dress out procedures, mock surveys with different dosimeters, how to write proper RWPs, etc. Calculations were easiest part if you ask me, but the thing is we HAD to learn how to do ALL of them. Does the knowledge basis really that inconsistent for new hires?

[Rennhack]

mock surveys with different dosimeters

We usually refer to items that people wear to record their personal dose (or total exposure) as Dosimeters.  We usually refer to the instruments that we use to perform surveys as Dose Rate Meters.

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that isn't how the terms are typically used.

Dosimeter: https://www.google.com/search?q=dosimeter&tbm=isch

Dose Rate Meter: https://www.google.com/search?q=dose+rate+meter&tbm=isch

Since you asked about 'Common mistakes', I'll say that a lot of people confuse Meters and Detectors.

[S T I G]

We usually refer to items that people wear to record their personal dose (or total exposure) as Dosimeters.  We usually refer to the instruments that we use to perform surveys as Dose Rate Meters.

I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just saying that isn't how the terms are typically used.

Dosimeter: https://www.google.com/search?q=dosimeter&tbm=isch

Dose Rate Meter: https://www.google.com/search?q=dose+rate+meter&tbm=isch

Since you asked about 'Common mistakes', I'll say that a lot of people confuse Meters and Detectors.

Would you believe me if I told you that's what I meant to say??

[BetaAnt]

The difference between an ANSI 18.1 and a 3.1 is generally 12 months of work experience. 18.1's are preferred for routine or low risk tasks. 3.1's are preferred for high risk tasks (diver operations, refuel canal, high rad/contam work ...). Licensing has nothing to do with it. NRC usually requires 24 months HPT experience for independent work. 3.1's are usually the lead techs.

I'm not saying that there are not a few good 18.1's in the field. It's just that 3.1's usually have more work experience (although some have under desk experience  ), and many have seen the circus before and know the acts that will follow.

Navy nuke ELT's fresh off the boat are 18.1's. DOE RCT's w/o commercial experience are 18.1's.

The main premise is to know your limitations, follow your plant procedures, and when in doubt, time out and regroup.

[61nomad]

Back to the original question, one thing I see with new techs is a focus on radiation safety over industrial safety. After almost 30 years as a tech I am more concerned about getting squished, electrocuted, or falling from high places than anything else. I try to never put myself or co-workers in a dangerous situation in order to perform a survey.

Also I notice a lot of new techs don't ask enough questions. If you are unsure about something ask! Even 20 year Seniors have questions and I don't know anybody that minds answering questions about work.

And BetaAnt- it did used to depend on what year the plant was licensed although I cant explain why Watts Bar is 18.1. And new ELTs can be 3.1 as well as DOE techs with 3 years of applicable experience. It is up to the plant's judgement. Also, you can bypass 18.1 if you have a BS or BA in a relevant field.

[S T I G]

Back to the original question, one thing I see with new techs is a focus on radiation safety over industrial safety. After almost 30 years as a tech I am more concerned about getting squished, electrocuted, or falling from high places than anything else. I try to never put myself or co-workers in a dangerous situation in order to perform a survey.

Also I notice a lot of new techs don't ask enough questions. If you are unsure about something ask! Even 20 year Seniors have questions and I don't know anybody that minds answering questions about work.

And BetaAnt- it did used to depend on what year the plant was licensed although I cant explain why Watts Bar is 18.1. And new ELTs can be 3.1 as well as DOE techs with 3 years of applicable experience. It is up to the plant's judgement. Also, you can bypass 18.1 if you have a BS or BA in a relevant field.

handn't thought of it that way but I can see what you mean...thanks for the reply

[Marlin]

   I hate to tell you this this but new RCTs will not likely be in a position of any great risk. In fact high risk jobs will not likely rest exclusively on a RCT but on the department as a whole. Most of the time the radiological risk will be to stay under federal and administrative limits that present no real risk to worker or public. Common problems for new techs have more to do with work ethic and professionalism. A few of these (for contractors in particular) are:

   -Little Hitler attitudes for people with new found power.

   -Jr. Scientists that fail to realize that the licensee is ultimately responsible and they are there to provide a service not upgrade a program and show everyone how smart they are.

   -Rad Ghosts that seem to disappear when there is a PCM alarm or other work to be done.


OK the last two extend to old timers too. 

[61nomad]

I agree with all that Marlin said.

Plus, when I first started i didnt know it was a team sport. You are actually on two teams, your HP crew and the team of you plus the craft people assigned to a job. You will be judged by your crew as well as the craft people.

For me, the job satisfaction is in the teamwork. Otherwise it sucks.

[Jr8black3]

I can't comment cause I know nothing. All I can say.

[leavingreality]

   I hate to tell you this this but new RCTs will not likely be in a position of any great risk. In fact high risk jobs will not likely rest exclusively on a RCT but on the department as a whole. Most of the time the radiological risk will be to stay under federal and administrative limits that present no real risk to worker or public. Common problems for new techs have more to do with work ethic and professionalism. A few of these (for contractors in particular) are:

   -Little Hitler attitudes for people with new found power.

   -Jr. Scientists that fail to realize that the licensee is ultimately responsible and they are there to provide a service not upgrade a program and show everyone how smart they are.

   -Rad Ghosts that seem to disappear when there is a PCM alarm or other work to be done.


OK the last two extend to old timers too. 

Along with the little hitler attitude is people seeing you blatantly violating rules you force them to follow. RCT's set the standard. If you do it, everyone else will also.

Documenting surveys is a big ugly eyesore on RP. Nothing you do really matters in six months if it's not clearly written down so that others can find it and understand without you standing over their shoulder. If you find something out of place, write it down. Then correct it and write that down. There's no legitimate reason to not identify deficiencies if you take the proper actions to correct them.

[GLW]

The difference between an ANSI 18.1 and a 3.1 is generally 12 months of work experience. 18.1's are preferred for routine or low risk tasks. 3.1's are preferred for high risk tasks (diver operations, refuel canal, high rad/contam work ...). Licensing has nothing to do with it. NRC usually requires 24 months HPT experience for independent work. 3.1's are usually the lead techs.

I'm not saying that there are not a few good 18.1's in the field. It's just that 3.1's usually have more work experience (although some have under desk experience  ), and many have seen the circus before and know the acts that will follow.

Navy nuke ELT's fresh off the boat are 18.1's. DOE RCT's w/o commercial experience are 18.1's.

The main premise is to know your limitations, follow your plant procedures, and when in doubt, time out and regroup.

Clueless,....

[Content1]

Did you mean to say, "Compromise?"

[UncaBuffalo]

Looking for examples of reoccurring mistakes or areas of weakness you commonly see in new RCTs. (certain calculations, Donning and Doffing, compliance??)

I would say that some of the newer workers tend to get too focused on one area and lose the big picture.  You need to juggle RP concerns, production concerns, Safety concerns, Security concerns...and find the proper weighting for each.  That can be pretty overwhelming for anyone at times, but especially for the newer workers.  


As a specific example, I just worked with an intern that was extremely sharp on their theory, as well as being motivated, personable, and all those nifty things.  Unfortunately, they had no clue about (or respect for?) security concerns...and nearly got shown off-site for wandering away from their escort.  

[Wlrun3]

1. Underestimating the effectiveness of PPE.
2. Overestimating the value of survey data.
3. Misunderstanding the limitations of instrumentation.
4. Unawareness of system function and status.
5. Misuse of error reduction tools.
6. Lack of preparation.
7. Absence of situational awareness.
8. Overconfidence.
9. Apathy.
10. Want of a desire to understand.

[ridgerunner61]

lack of "give a s__t" is a major concern.

I had one HP tech that had a full beard when I pointed out that he needed to shave he said "I can't be taken seriously as a farmer without the beard" I stated that he couldn't be taken seriously as an HP with the beard. It took awhile but he finally shaved. He had worked at the plant for years before he was assigned to my crew, The RPM couldn't beleive I got him to shave.

[GLW]

lack of "give a s__t" is a major concern.

I had one HP tech that had a full beard when I pointed out that he needed to shave he said "I can't be taken seriously as a farmer without the beard" I stated that he couldn't be taken seriously as an HP with the beard. It took awhile but he finally shaved. He had worked at the plant for years before he was assigned to my crew, The RPM couldn't beleive I got him to shave.

good anecdote, but not a "new RCT" mistake/weakness,...

more like a stubborn old "s__t" slinger management challenge,...

the new RCTs are easier to manage, nice application of finesse on your part though,....

[Laundry Man]

I will agree with you cannot trust others survey data.  Got bit by that bug exactly once.
LM

[SloGlo]

I will agree with you cannot trust others survey data.  Got bit by that bug exactly once.
LM

trust... yet verify.   

[S T I G]

Did you mean to say, "Compromise?"

yes I did..I fixed it thank you

[S T I G]

Thank you all for your replies. It helps a lot.