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.

[YO!]

ANSI 3.1 Standards put SRS, Hanford and Y-12 Senior HP as 1 to 1 with Power Plants. I haven't seen anything in a power plant come close to what is at those plants. I have worked at SRS, Y-12 and many DOE sites along with many Power Plants. I have worked with many HP's and RP's. 20+ years ago there were many knowledgeable and skilled HP's and RP's. I came thru the Nuclear Engineering Program. Those of us that graduated had to know Health Physics and Reactor Operations. I have worked with Old Timers that cannot read a meter and the only way anyone found out was when plants started giving the meter test. I have worked with people fresh out of the Radiation Protection Program that don't have a clue what the Gas Amplification Curve is about, much less the purpose of the Inverse Square Law.
Many want the Title but most don't want to learn the job. They spend most of their time stirring crap and drama. There is no way to have an intelligent conversation with them because they don't have the background for it. They are politicians and drama queens. They are the big talkers and the first to run and hide when there is a real job. There are many 3.1's that got there by sitting in a chair or under the desk! I see so called 3.1's stand in the shine and don't have a clue that they can use a meter to find their low dose area. They can't protect themselves so they can't protect the worker. These are the same RP's that you can't tell anything, because they know it all. They are a danger to themselves and the people they are supposed to protect.
The true HP's and RP's are few and far between!!!

[Marlin]

ANSI 3.1 Standards put SRS, Hanford and Y-12 Senior HP as 1 to 1 with Power Plants. I haven't seen anything in a power plant come close to what is at those plants.

   I think you need to reread ANSI it makes no specific reference as to what is acceptable, that is the responsibility of facilities who are required to use this standard.

   I have worked at Y-12 and am very aware of the isotopes and conditions that they deal with and it is not comparable to a commercial plant. A number of techs I am aware of who left Y-12 for commercial plants were not given equivalent experience in large part because the experience was not equivalent.

[Already Gone]

Lots of these replies are so spot-on that I wish I had said them first.

Big mistake:  thinking that there will ever be a time when you know all you need to know.

Bigger mistake: going with the crowd on something instead of following your instincts.

Biggest mistake:  keeping your mouth shut when you have a question or see a problem because you don't want to look stupid or make waves.  If something doesn't make sense to you, there is at least a 50% chance that is because it doesn't make sense at all.

I agree with the trust but verify.  I remember a very experienced tech once surveyed a small area prior to workers entering it and finding nothing of concern.  I remember a brand new Sr. Tech sticking his meter in exactly one foot farther only a minute or so later and found a Locked High Radiation Area.  I'll bend a rule here and use his name - Brian Perkins.  By being curious, he saved the more experienced tech from a huge mistake.  That tech would be me, by the way.

Oh yeah, that reminds me, ask for peer checks whenever you possibly can.

[GLW]

Well, I'm a bit more pragmatic than the other posters,...

New RCTs should never be put in a position where they can compromise safety,...

That would be a managment/supervision fail,...

No RCT which has completed a DOE or shipyard qual program can be called new because they are qualified, should they compromise a safety aspect within their scope of work on their first day qualified that compromise  would indicate a failure of the qualification program,...

Any RCT which has legitimately earned the 18.1 or 3.1 hours and successfully qualified to the NEI 14/15 qualifications is likewise not new and the same paradigm applies,...

The anecdotes filling this thread are indicative of management/supervision failures or the empirical observation that there is an innate aspect to being a superior Health Physics professional which is recognizable but not defineable,...

As in all things,....

[mars88]

REAL safety issues are beyond anything rad.

Such as a tech thinking he can operate a manlift or a reciprocating saw.

[UncaBuffalo]

REAL safety issues are beyond anything rad.

Such as a tech thinking he can operate a manlift or a reciprocating saw.

Hmm...that one is site specific.  I've used sawzalls on plenty of demolition sites...and have been qualified on various types of scissor lifts and cherry pickers...

But I get your point...stick with what you are qualified on.

[mars88]

I appreciate the fact that you were actually qualified and knew what you were doing.

My main point is that radiation isn't the danger.  12,000 workers died in the past three years in the U.S., but not one from radiation.  Heck, 1500 were from workplace violence.

[GLW]

REAL safety issues are beyond anything rad.......

Yet another choragus for the "RP Techs are redundant, an overpopulated and unnecessary discipline" choir,...

Because self monitoring works so well,...

[Rennhack]

REAL safety issues are beyond anything rad.

Such as a tech thinking he can operate a manlift or a reciprocating saw.

[Mr.Tritium]

I am a fairly new rad tech. I am entering my 3rd outage in a few weeks and I recently obtained my green badge.

I know I don't know tons about what I do, but I would like to think I'm picking it up quickly for the jobs I'm being assigned compared to most of my newish crew.

I agree there is a issue with people not giving a flying f... about the aspects of the job. And more so the inept nature of quite a few in regards to knowing just more then "go to work, get a paycheck"

There is quite a few who I wouldent trust working on a tri cycle.

I have tried to help some who seemed to want to learn more, or at least chat about it and it usually ends up with "I know enough" yet they have issues reading a meter, always missing when a personal alarm is called in, lackluster rp procedures and refusal or worming their way out of a job in the vault.

I have nothing personal against these people, but perhaps this Isent the job for them.

I have done nothing but read and soak up as much as I can from you guys. Great learning tool. Keep it up!

May see one or two of you in darlington or pickering one day.

[RDTroja]

I appreciate the fact that you were actually qualified and knew what you were doing.

My main point is that radiation isn't the danger.  12,000 workers died in the past three years in the U.S., but not one from radiation.  Heck, 1500 were from workplace violence.

Following the same logic, industrial safety is worthless because cars kill over three times as many people as industrial accidents.

Maybe radiation is not 'the danger' because we are better at controlling the risk.

[OldHP]

Biggest mistake:  keeping your mouth shut when you have a question or see a problem because you don't want to look stupid or make waves.  If something doesn't make sense to you, there is at least a 50% chance that is because it doesn't make sense at all.

Everyone has to understand what "Stop Work Authority" means, from the Janitor to the Manager! 

Troja is correct - radiation isn't the danger, but it can be when an individual 'trained' as a NORM/TENORM 'RSO', and doesn't know the difference between micro, milli, and mega is put in a situation by a good Sr Tech so she can take a phone call.  Luckaly a good young mechanic knew his responsibility and 'shut it down'!

[S T I G]

Everyone has to understand what "Stop Work Authority" means, from the Janitor to the Manager! 

Troja is correct - radiation isn't the danger, but it can be when an individual 'trained' as a NORM/TENORM 'RSO', and doesn't know the difference between micro, milli, and mega is put in a situation by a good Sr Tech so she can take a phone call.  Luckaly a good young mechanic knew his responsibility and 'shut it down'!

How do these people even get hired if they don't know that stuff

[GLW]

....Maybe radiation is not 'the danger' because we are better at controlling the risk.

Because "we" are one of the chronic risks,...

The controls always become onerous and tight for the chronic risks for which the thresholds are ill defined,...

Falling out of a scissor lift is an acute danger with well defined thresholds for personal accountability and for cause and effect,...

Ergo, the administrative controls to prevent folks from falling out of a scissor lift are more readily definable and cost effectively implemented,...

Nobody comes back after 20 years and sues for post scissor lift traumatic disorder,...

Falling out of a scissor lift only needs to be mitigated to the point that a person does not fall out,...

Falling out of a scissor lift only needs to be mitigated to the point that when a person does fall out, it is the person's fault,...

An employee can smoke two packs of unfiltered cigarettes per day for 20 years and that smoking has no impact on their exposure to the dizzying heights of working on a scissor lift,...

Ionizing radiation, asbestos, cracking and fracking,...

not so much,....

although some of the powers that be do try to push the paradigm for "rad" safety towards the same paradigm as "scissor lift" safety,...

after all, "scissor lift" safety is recognized as being more cost effective,...

ergo, "self-monitoring",...

in a world of golden parachutes and frequent corporate turnovers the chronic illness class action lawsuit out on the 20 to 30 year horizon is not going to snatch one dollar from the golden parachute beneficiary of today,...

next weeks dead scissor lift operator will,...

do not they teach this stuff to those two year RCT whiz kids and stimulus spawn?!?!?!?

[ddickey]

How do these people even get hired if they don't know that stuff

They interview well.

[mars88]

Following the same logic, industrial safety is worthless because cars kill over three times as many people as industrial accidents.

Maybe radiation is not 'the danger' because we are better at controlling the risk.

WOW, JUST WOW.

Cars WOULD be controlled if they were a leading WORKPLACE-RELATED cause of death.  This topic is about the workplace, not homelife.

[RDTroja]

WOW, JUST WOW.

Cars WOULD be controlled if they were a leading WORKPLACE-RELATED cause of death.  This topic is about the workplace, not homelife.

Risk is risk. Many car related deaths ARE work related. Your argument is specious... no matter how many wows you include.

[GLW]

WOW, JUST WOW.

Cars WOULD be controlled if they were a leading WORKPLACE-RELATED cause of death.  This topic is about the workplace, not homelife.

OSHA publications place motor vehicle fatalities at between 35 and 40 percent of all occupational related deaths from year to year,...

Typically better than 1700 deaths per year,....

Between 35 and 40 percent is probably a leading cause of occupational fatalities,...

Perhaps not, perhaps your data is better than OSHA's on this narrow aspect of occupational fatalities,...

If so, please share,...

[rameysdz]

One common issue that I see with newer RCT's, is that they are often times intimidated by their more experienced cow workers or supervisors, and may be less likely to ask advice for either HP technical questions/ concerns, or questions related to job coverage ect.,  I have seen this lead to both minor, and major mistakes.  I believe it is extremely important and beneficial for the more senior technicians, lead techs and supervisors, to do their best to break down those walls of intimidation.  Health Physics is vast field, which has changed in many ways throughout the last couple decades, mainly the increase in computerized technology. Writing surveys and calculating air samples by hand has almost become non -existent these days, as well as other calculations that were once performed in the field by hand.  On top of that, with the serious lack of work for Jr. RCT’s, there is the resume fudging factor that comes into play just to attain work in the early years.  One common path for attaining Sr.RCT status over the last decade, has been site characterization and final status jobs. These jobs are often longer term, and for many of the technicians in the field, it only requires minimal technical knowledge, and job coverage skills, if any.  From there, a little tweaking of the resume, a good connection and poof….Now you find yourself covering actual High Rad / High Contamination work, and too afraid to say you have never covered work of this nature before.  At this point it can be sink or swim for the new RCT.  I have made it a point during the resume reviewing and accepting process, to only put some much regard into it. Once the new RCT arrives, I like to offer an intimidation free environment where the new technician will feel comfortable asking questions, and also be forthcoming about what their true experience level is.  I have used this approach, and have had great success with it.  I believe the vastness of the HP field itself along with the many different ways a person can enter the field, can and will leave quite a learning curve once the RCT is taken out of his or her comfort zone. This holds true for new RCT’s as well as 20,30, 40 year veterans that have not had the luxury of working in a multitude of different radiological environments.  Aside from this, everyone is wired differently. I have seen some of the most analytically and technically sound RCT’s that are unable to perform effectively in many of the more common RCT field environments. Having said that, I know many experienced / field strong RCT’s that that know very little about the instrumentation that they are using, other the turning it on..source check ect.   

[GLW]

One common issue that I see with newer RCT's,.....Now you find yourself covering actual High Rad / High Contamination work, and too afraid to say you have never covered work of this nature before.  At this point it can be sink or swim for the new RCT.  I have made it a point during the resume reviewing and accepting process, to only put some much regard into it. Once the new RCT arrives, I like to offer an intimidation free environment where the new technician will feel comfortable asking questions, and also be forthcoming about what their true experience level is.........  

Nice post, my position is different, if their resume states or indicates they have refuel & SFP, pool to pad, major component replacement, hi rad, hi alpha, shipping, etc. and then two weeks into a five week outage they come "upfront" with you to let you know they really do not have the foggiest idea what to expect or how to protect the occupational worker it's time to launch or reassign them,...

You can be as warm and fuzzy as you choose to be but I would submit to you that if your peer coaching fails and that faux senior screws it up big time or even small time, and then, as part of the root cause that same faux senior informs the investigator(s) that they told you they were unqualified but you elected to "coach" them through what they were not qualified to perform, if I'm the investigator, I'm gonna nail you to the cross (that's a metaphorical "I"),...

Which leaves you in the position of fessing up to the "coaching" allegation or denying you ever made such a pact and hanging the faux senior out there all by themselves,...

Because you carry the responsibility, once you are aware of it, to not let an unqualified individual impact the radiation protection of the occupational workers or the general public,...

And I would be stunned if you could produce a single GET or CBOT or ethics module at any commercial facility which would train or endorse you to "coach" an unqualified individual (whose resume was misleading) as they performed the technical and safety relevant aspects of their duties whenever you could make time for it away from your own duties,...

That's how I see it, if you choose to assert you have the authority to make that judgement call on behalf of the licensee, then that's how you see it and we will have to agree to disagree,...

[Schiner]

I'll reiterate what several have already said.  As a relatively frequent hirer of new techs including techs from the program the OP came from there are several things that stick out to me including:
1. Yes.  Not being able to convert 200cpm on the X100 scale into dpm.  I understand you have 10 things going on at once and there are Sr RCTs or RCSs looking at you waiting for info.  Alot of folks brains lock up in that situation.  Just stop, calm down, and do the simple math.  To help techs that struggle with this, I have a file with a list of meter faces showing needle readings and scale indicators just so they can practice.
2. Not questioning things that seem wrong to you.  "Well that isn't how I was trained to do it, but since a Sr is doing it that way, I will too."  Bad, bad, bad.  (and shame on the Srs for teaching bad habits - all too common)  Ask others if you are not sure about a practice you're being taught.
3. "I got this."  Being a know-it-all as a junior RCT is rarely a good thing, because usually you don't.  Allow others to give you direction and be appreciative for their input.
4. My biggest pet peeve is green RCTs that simply go through the motions.  Its vital to know HOW to do your various RCT tasks, but just as important for your growth as an RCT is to understand the WHY of what you are being asked to do.  Sure, I know how to survey around this connection point, but why am I being asked to do it?
There are probably a hundred other things I could add, but I'll stop for now.

[mars88]

You are not better at controlling risk--there is just such a minimal risk, you are lulled into that fallacy.  Then when some major incident happens, you are all like newborns.

And BTW, OSHA DOES control vehicle safety in its construction standard.  You guys should have known that.

[Marlin]

3. "I got this."  Being a know-it-all as a junior RCT is rarely a good thing, because usually you don't.  Allow others to give you direction and be appreciative for their input.

Good point but I would apply this to Senior techs as well, especially contract techs in a plant they haven't worked before. 

[Marlin]

You are not better at controlling risk--there is just such a minimal risk, you are lulled into that fallacy.  Then when some major incident happens, you are all like newborns.

And BTW, OSHA DOES control vehicle safety in its construction standard.  You guys should have known that.

Couple of points:

-I completely agree about radiological risk however mitigating regulatory and legal risks for the licensee are part of the job.

-When answering a post using the quote function helps the flow of the thread. To start a post with the quote included just hit the quote button and it will open inside your dialogue box. With the dialogue box open scroll down to the post you want to insert and hit the quote button, it will open it in your dialogue box where your cursor is located.

[rameysdz]

Nice post, my position is different, if their resume states or indicates they have refuel & SFP, pool to pad, major component replacement, hi rad, hi alpha, shipping, etc. and then two weeks into a five week outage they come "upfront" with you to let you know they really do not have the foggiest idea what to expect or how to protect the occupational worker it's time to launch or reassign them,...

You can be as warm and fuzzy as you choose to be but I would submit to you that if your peer coaching fails and that faux senior screws it up big time or even small time, and then, as part of the root cause that same faux senior informs the investigator(s) that they told you they were unqualified but you elected to "coach" them through what they were not qualified to perform, if I'm the investigator, I'm gonna nail you to the cross (that's a metaphorical "I"),...

Which leaves you in the position of fessing up to the "coaching" allegation or denying you ever made such a pact and hanging the faux senior out there all by themselves,...

Because you carry the responsibility, once you are aware of it, to not let an unqualified individual impact the radiation protection of the occupational workers or the general public,...

And I would be stunned if you could produce a single GET or CBOT or ethics module at any commercial facility which would train or endorse you to "coach" an unqualified individual (whose resume was misleading) as they performed the technical and safety relevant aspects of their duties whenever you could make time for it away from your own duties,...

That's how I see it, if you choose to assert you have the authority to make that judgement call on behalf of the licensee, then that's how you see it and we will have to agree to disagree,...

I do agree with you to a point. There is really no a one size fits all solution. I feel that common sense along with a strong sense of awareness play a huge role in the strength of an RCT. There are times when a certain RCT is way out their league experience wise, and some just lack the common sense needed , as well as a constant sense of awareness to cover certain work.  The experience and qualifications needed for an RCT / HP covering short duration refuel outage type work differs greatly , then say DOE research work. And vice versa .   Though I come from the commercial world initially, I have worked on the outside for the last 15 years, as have many RCT’s due to short duration of outages.  The facility that I have currently worked at for the last five years is very unique, one of only a couple in the world. The majority of the long term contractors that have worked for me over the last few years come in very under qualified to support and cover work here.  For the most part these have very been qualified, and competent RCT’s, and have had a willingness to expand their technical knowledge.  This facility has many exotic isotopes, Including many trans – uranic. Routine high rad and high contamination work is performed daily all year round. The majority of technicians that come to work here from commercial power have never worked with DAC values of E-12, and have never seen most of the isotopes that we work with, accept in the chart of nuclides. Unless I see that the RCT is seriously lacking basic HP knowledge, and or, is lacking serious common sense, I allow time for the learning curve.  As they progress, so will their work load. It is far more beneficial to bring them up to speed, rather then reassign, or let them go.  Aside from the actual Rad work that is performed, we cover much of the IH work performed in the field as well.  Also, interacting with the researchers can have it’s own challenges as well, so there is a serious learning curve there as well.

[GLW]

......And BTW, OSHA DOES control vehicle safety in its construction standard.  You guys should have known that.

we DID know that,...

this:

WOW, JUST WOW.

Cars WOULD be controlled if they were a leading WORKPLACE-RELATED cause of death.  This topic is about the workplace, not homelife.

is your typed statement,......not ours,.....

[GLW]

I do agree with you to a point. There is really no a one size fits all solution. I feel that common sense along with a strong sense of awareness play a huge role in the strength of an RCT. There are times when a certain RCT is way out their league experience wise, and some just lack the common sense needed , as well as a constant sense of awareness to cover certain work.  The experience and qualifications needed for an RCT / HP covering short duration refuel outage type work differs greatly , then say DOE research work. And vice versa .   Though I come from the commercial world initially, I have worked on the outside for the last 15 years, as have many RCT’s due to short duration of outages.  The facility that I have currently worked at for the last five years is very unique, one of only a couple in the world. The majority of the long term contractors that have worked for me over the last few years come in very under qualified to support and cover work here.  For the most part these have very been qualified, and competent RCT’s, and have had a willingness to expand their technical knowledge.  This facility has many exotic isotopes, Including many trans – uranic. Routine high rad and high contamination work is performed daily all year round. The majority of technicians that come to work here from commercial power have never worked with DAC values of E-12, and have never seen most of the isotopes that we work with, accept in the chart of nuclides. Unless I see that the RCT is seriously lacking basic HP knowledge, and or, is lacking serious common sense, I allow time for the learning curve.  As they progress, so will their work load. It is far more beneficial to bring them up to speed, rather then reassign, or let them go.  Aside from the actual Rad work that is performed, we cover much of the IH work performed in the field as well.  Also, interacting with the researchers can have it’s own challenges as well, so there is a serious learning curve there as well.

well said,....

[RDTroja]

You are not better at controlling risk--there is just such a minimal risk, you are lulled into that fallacy.  Then when some major incident happens, you are all like newborns.

And BTW, OSHA DOES control vehicle safety in its construction standard.  You guys should have known that.

I had no idea you had watched us all react to a major incident... is that you, God?

 

[atomicarcheologist]

Great thread. I have to laugh at superiority mentality of the power plant people. It's so much fun having them on a dirt job, the know-it-alls. Some,as soon as they get their hands on a Model 19, get so confused looking for the beta slide and you can hear the rusty gears turning to figure out the reading in "real radiation" terms. I've had 25 year Srs dig yyards of extra material from the corners of a trench and when asked why they had that much excavated replied that they did that because it was twice, or three times the rest of the surface instead of doing the math for a juncture of planes. I have more, bit not enough time.

[RDTroja]

Great thread. I have to laugh at superiority mentality of the power plant people. It's so much fun having them on a dirt job, the know-it-alls. Some,as soon as they get their hands on a Model 19, get so confused looking for the beta slide and you can hear the rusty gears turning to figure out the reading in "real radiation" terms. I've had 25 year Srs dig yyards of extra material from the corners of a trench and when asked why they had that much excavated replied that they did that because it was twice, or three times the rest of the surface instead of doing the math for a juncture of planes. I have more, bit not enough time.

Working in a power plant and working on a 'dirt job' are two entirely different animals. Yes, radiation is radiation, but there the similarities end. Most techs that 'grow up' in one industry are like fish out of water in the other and moving in either direction can expose (sorry for that) any number of holes in one's experience level. I have seen plenty of 'dirt' techs that came to a plant and were worse than first year juniors (mostly because they didn't know that they didn't know) and others that did quite well after the initial 'adjustment' period. The same can be said for ex-navy techs. I am a product of commercial power and I am sure I would be uncomfortable (at least for a while) trying to go to a remediation site (or into the navy if that were even possible  .) Saying that the 'power plant people' have a superiority mentality is no more accurate than the reverse... as evidenced by your post. Neither industry, nor the people in them, are inherently better or worse. Both have enough similarities to allow cross-over employment and enough differences to make the transition less than smooth.

[Ksheed]

Working in a power plant and working on a 'dirt job' are two entirely different animals. Yes, radiation is radiation, but there the similarities end. Most techs that 'grow up' in one industry are like fish out of water in the other and moving in either direction can expose (sorry for that) any number of holes in one's experience level. I have seen plenty of 'dirt' techs that came to a plant and were worse than first year juniors (mostly because they didn't know that they didn't know) and others that did quite well after the initial 'adjustment' period. The same can be said for ex-navy techs. I am a product of commercial power and I am sure I would be uncomfortable (at least for a while) trying to go to a remediation site (or into the navy if that were even possible  .) Saying that the 'power plant people' have a superiority mentality is no more accurate than the reverse... as evidenced by your post. Neither industry, nor the people in them, are inherently better or worse. Both have enough similarities to allow cross-over employment and enough differences to make the transition less than smooth.

There is no need to be sorry. A nuke forum where you have to apologize for a radcon pun is a nuke forum I don't want to be a part of.

[RadRooster]

Working in a power plant and working on a 'dirt job' are two entirely different animals. Yes, radiation is radiation, but there the similarities end. Most techs that 'grow up' in one industry are like fish out of water in the other and moving in either direction can expose (sorry for that) any number of holes in one's experience level. I have seen plenty of 'dirt' techs that came to a plant and were worse than first year juniors (mostly because they didn't know that they didn't know) and others that did quite well after the initial 'adjustment' period. The same can be said for ex-navy techs. I am a product of commercial power and I am sure I would be uncomfortable (at least for a while) trying to go to a remediation site (or into the navy if that were even possible  .) Saying that the 'power plant people' have a superiority mentality is no more accurate than the reverse... as evidenced by your post. Neither industry, nor the people in them, are inherently better or worse. Both have enough similarities to allow cross-over employment and enough differences to make the transition less than smooth.

I agree whole heartedly. I "grew up" on a dirt job and the transition to commercial was a bumpy one. I think I came through it fairly well but realize that I still have a lot to learn in both arenas. I have worked with just about every variety of tech, Navy Nuke, commercial and "dirt" techs. Some good and some not so good regardless of where they leanred their craft. it all depends on their attitude as well as the attitude of the people they are working with i.e not looking down on others because of where they came from.  My cent an a half.

RR

[OldHP]

Working in a power plant and working on a 'dirt job' are two entirely different animals. Yes, radiation is radiation, but there the similarities end. Most techs that 'grow up' in one industry are like fish out of water in the other and moving in either direction can expose (sorry for that) any number of holes in one's experience level. I have seen plenty of 'dirt' techs that came to a plant and were worse than first year juniors (mostly because they didn't know that they didn't know) and others that did quite well after the initial 'adjustment' period. The same can be said for ex-navy techs. I am a product of commercial power and I am sure I would be uncomfortable (at least for a while) trying to go to a remediation site (or into the navy if that were even possible  .) Saying that the 'power plant people' have a superiority mentality is no more accurate than the reverse... as evidenced by your post. Neither industry, nor the people in them, are inherently better or worse. Both have enough similarities to allow cross-over employment and enough differences to make the transition less than smooth.

There are many different 'animals' out there!  The Navy program, the DOE world, the DOD (non NNP) world, Commercial Power, the NORM/TENORM world, the University world, the Medical world, the 'dirt' D&D world, etc.  They have similarities, but all have differences - Dose rates, Contamination levels, expected DAC-hrs, etc.  At this point in this 'old mans' life I've been fortunate to have worked in most, but I have only found a few techs that I could take anywhere.

In my commercial days there were Navy, Medical, DOE, etc., Techs that I gave full credit to after a month, others that remained juniors until we ran them off.  I've seen the same on D&D, etc. projects where a great commercial tech had the attitude that 'at these levels it's not worth measuring'.

As had been said before, the RPM/RSO has to make the decision, after careful consideration and (hopefully) personal observation, what he/she can consider in stating this Technician is fully qualified for this job!

Just my  worth! 

 

[Bonds 25]

One thing I would like to see changed is the process of putting workers in excess PC's (talking mostly plastics) in high heat stress areas of the plant (wet well for example) because we are afraid of a little contamination getting on their skin.
 
Heat stress (stroke) is a serious health concern......getting 8000 dpm/PA on somebody's elbow...not so much. Getting a PCE nowdays is like the end of the world (thanks INPO) and I'm afraid we are so concerned on making our "PCE Goal" that we sometimes forget that extra PCs isn't always the safest method we should be instituting.

[surf50]

I agree, but as long as PCE's are a performance metric for outage goals, it's not likely to happen. The South Florida plants I grew up on had (and probably still do) numerous cases of people collapsing inside/exiting containment during the initial and final days of an outage.
Unless that person gets transported offsite, it doesn't seem to count for much.

You do get used to it, but it's not fun. 100+ degrees/high humidity/vapor barriers = a miserable time.
That's a big reason I don't work those places anymore.

[SloGlo]

One thing I would like to see changed is the process of putting workers in excess PC's (talking mostly plastics) in high heat stress areas of the plant (wet well for example) because we are afraid of a little contamination getting on their skin.
 

saunas n steem rooms are grate conditioning tools. 

[hamsamich]

Just heard at the last plant I was at (during the "RPM" talk) that some corners at INPO are debating the overblown importance of "low range" PCEs.  Maybe safety, heat stress and dose will receive more of the importance they have long deserved.  I'm sure PCEs will still be somewhat overblown no matter what, but maybe we will go in the right direction as an industry?     Don't know the specifics, should have asked more questions.

[SloGlo]

Just heard at the last plant I was at (during the "RPM" talk) that some corners at INPO are debating the overblown importance of "low range" PCEs. 

aye am thinking that a hole knew generation of personnel contamination discussion has bean born.

[Bonds 25]

Our RPM told us the same thing......

We will see during our 2015 spring outage if it has any weight. I sure hope so......although our 1st 2014 PCE (500 cpm speck on the bottom of a shoe) certainly seemed like a major event.