NukeWorker Forum
Career Path => Getting in => Topic started by: RAD-GHOST on Oct 08, 2004, 11:14
-
I use to think I kept up with the Industry, but lately I believe I'm falling behind. Who the Heck changed the ANSI standards, 18.1 and 3.1?
When did the standards require anything other then time as a requirement?
18.1 = 4000 hours
3.1 = 6000 hours
I need a little help from the board, if an individual hits the 4000 hour mark, are they a qualified 18.1 tech?
Same with the 3.1, after 6000 hours, are they 3.1 qualified?
How about if they pass the NEU test, does that make them qualified?
Inquiring minds want to know?
-
It's a little more complicated than that, compounded by the fact that they are vague, outdated, and non-specific.
The hours only count up to 50 in any week. So, if a resume says that Ricky Juniortech worked a 21 day outage, he cannot possibly take credit for more than 150 hours. (Well, maybe a few more depending on what day of the week the job starts and ends, but either way he can't count all hours worked.) Training hours don't count, but some training programs and degrees can be substituted for part of the hours.
There are ways other than hours that are acceptable.
The standarda also have some requirements about time on site and stuff like that.
What I suspect you are encountering is not a change in the standards, but rather a change in ways of interpreting them. Some plants actually have a written procedure for determining the ANSI qualifications of individual techs, while others just accept the word of your employer. And you can never forget the girlfriend factor.
-
It is vague nowadays, and not as meaningful. There used to be hours at a plant required, etc. Now if you "have displayed proficiency" as an HP (as judged by whom?) you can be a Sr 3.1 if there are job openings and not enough Techs. This is how DOE people with no experience are walking into Power Plants as SR. HPs. Scary isn't it?
-
I need to clear up something that I posted earlier that seems really sexist.
By "the girlfriend factor" I was not implying that women are deemed to be qualified by being someone's girlfriend. The "factor" was a joke about deciding which techs to keep based on how attractive their girlfriends were. If you had a gorgeous girlfriend, you were laid-off last.
So,rather than implying that the women techs are unqualified, and getting their jobs "the old fashioned way", the girlfriend factor actually implies that it is the GUYS who are less qualified than they would seem to be, and they only have their jobs because of the women.
Of course, it was not always a joke. I remember a lot of mediocre or lazy HP's who benefitted from the fact that they came attached to some really great women.
-
BC,
That's Funny! What does the, " Old Fashion Way", mean?
Out of the pan, into the fire! :-X
RG
-
Seriously, back on the ANSI standards.
I guess I wasn't specific enough.
Let's assume an individual has the necessary qualifying hours, all documented by the company. Also the individual has successfully completed the NEU test. Does the person meet the 18.1, or 3.1 standard? Has something happened in the industry, which requires further testing or special qualifications? If so, is it site specific, or an industry wide policy?
RG
-
I think it's more site specific than just accumulated hrs. At some sites you must have the ANSI specified time and specific documentation stating you are qualified to perform certain tasks.
At this site Jr's must aquire the time and also pass OJT and a "Task Performance Evaluation" along with passing the NEU before they are a qualified 18.1.
-
BC,
That's Funny! What does the, " Old Fashion Way", mean?
Out of the pan, into the fire! :-X
You'll notice that I put that phrase in quotes. I did that for a reason.
Back to the standards, ANSI hasn't changed the standards in over 25 years. ANSI N-3.1 actually supersedes N-18.1. Plants that were licensed before the change can still use the old standard. However, I think they have to adopt 3.1 if they are relicensed. (Does anyone have the answer to that?) Eventually, all those plants will be gone, and N-18.1 will be history.
I'm getting a vibe here that someone you know is getting screwed over the qualification process. That doesn't have anything to do with ANSI. N-18.1 and N-3.1 do not specifically require the NEU exam (now known as the RP FUndamentals Exam) because they were both published before that exam existed.
You might look to see if INPO has anything to do with the latest developments.
-
Here's my experience with ANSI standards.
I have an A.S. degree in Radiation Protection and 538 days/76 weeks & 6 days (however you'd like to count it) in plant RP/HP experience. If I'm only allowed 50 hours per week, I've accumulated 3,800 hours thus far with only 200 hours, or 4 weeks, left before I qualify as an 18.1 senior.
I just asked Bartlett to send me on the next job as an 18.1 senior. I was told they can't do that. If the plant wants to sign me off as an 18.1 they can, but Bartlett can't submit me as one until I have fully met the qualifications. I was also told I don't get credit for my degree until I meet the "time in plant" for 18.1
As for Palo Verde I've been told that once I complete three years experience (they'll give me 50 weeks for my degree), I qualify to be a 3.1 senior there. The way this was told to me, and the way I'm interrupting this, I only have to finish up 4 more weeks of time before I qualify as an 18.1 and 3.1 senior (50 weeks for the degree gives me another 2,500 hours putting me above the 6,000 needed for 3.1 senior).
Would any Bartlett recruiters like to chime in on this?
-
Actually your in the Black Hole of Qualifications. I know a couple of Techs who have gone through the same situation. That's why I started this thread. Of course their situation drug on past their tallied time! Believe it or not, some companies have to staff positions, with Techs who have qualifications such as yours. A seniors wont take the position and some juniors don't meet the qualified. It's probably not the buyers problem, more the sellers! You should actually get some credit for your degree. Obviously their plans don't meet your, time to shop for another opportunity! Remember, your a much bigger asset when your working for someone else!
Good Luck, RG
-
The "ANSI Standards" are a bit like "The Pirate's Code"......"they're more like guidelines" and will almost always be interpreted in the manner most beneficial to whoever is in charge (usually the Utility or Primary Contractor). Staffing companies (such as Bartlett) have almost no say in this. They may plead your case, but unless it's a case of 'no one else is available' they aren't likely to prevail.
Don't forget the key words and tricky phrases when you prepare your resume. A deconner who checks wipes and smears with an RM-14 "performs sampling, monitoring and surveillance to identify, quantify and assess the presence of Radioactive Material and associated hazards."
And don't overlook the 'babe factor'....it is alive and well on both sides of the gender line.
-
Just talked to Bartlett again to see how much time they're going to give me towards 18.1. They say they don't go by hours, but by months instead. Sure would like to see their formula. I'm all ready losing lots of hours by only calculating 50 hours per week instead of what I've actually worked.
Would someone tell me where I can go to find the ANSI standards for 18.1 and 3.1 techs spelled out? I've been to ANS, ANSI and NRC's web sites and conducted a search, but what I want doesn't come up.
-
Here's my experience with ANSI standards.
I have an A.S. degree in Radiation Protection and 538 days/76 weeks & 6 days (however you'd like to count it) in plant RP/HP experience. If I'm only allowed 50 hours per week, I've accumulated 3,800 hours thus far with only 200 hours, or 4 weeks, left before I qualify as an 18.1 senior.
I just asked Bartlett to send me on the next job as an 18.1 senior. I was told they can't do that. If the plant wants to sign me off as an 18.1 they can, but Bartlett can't submit me as one until I have fully met the qualifications. I was also told I don't get credit for my degree until I meet the "time in plant" for 18.1
As for Palo Verde I've been told that once I complete three years experience (they'll give me 50 weeks for my degree), I qualify to be a 3.1 senior there. The way this was told to me, and the way I'm interrupting this, I only have to finish up 4 more weeks of time before I qualify as an 18.1 and 3.1 senior (50 weeks for the degree gives me another 2,500 hours putting me above the 6,000 needed for 3.1 senior).
Would any Bartlett recruiters like to chime in on this?
I'll chime in on this -as I e-mailed you earlier an ANSI 18.1 SHP calls for 2 years HP related experience - 2 years can actually be broken down a couple of different ways. The industry/Bartlett standard is to break it down by calendar months – basically 24 months in-plant time = 2 years experience. Some other vendors and a small handful of plants will break it down by hours – the formula for this is 20 months x 4 weeks/month = 80 weeks x 50 hrs/wk = 4,000 hrs, thus making someone with 20 mo’s HP an 18.1 SHP. Bartlett has to of course hold to a tighter standard than the "hour"formula due to that all of our resumes and quals are of course subject to audit. Now with that in mind, if a client wants to make an individual an 18.1 based upon hours instead of calendar months, we have no problem with that a long as that client is willing to sign off on it. As far as the Degree goes most utilities will give 12 mo's credit for an AS or higher degree in Radiation Protection, this however will not kick you to 18.1 status when you've achieved 12 mo's experience - it will however kick you to 3.1 status (in most cases at most sites) once you've reached 24 mo's in-plant HP experience. Now on top of all that there additional exception to these "rules". These exceptions basically vary from plant to plant depending on the individual plant's qualification criteria/program. Hope this helped.
Eric
-
Just talked to Bartlett again to see how much time they're going to give me towards 18.1. They say they don't go by hours, but by months instead. Sure would like to see their formula. I'm all ready losing lots of hours by only calculating 50 hours per week instead of what I've actually worked.
Would someone tell me where I can go to find the ANSI standards for 18.1 and 3.1 techs spelled out? I've been to ANS, ANSI and NRC's web sites and conducted a search, but what I want doesn't come up.
.
Here is a link to a paper on nukeworker talking about it and it has some links imbedded in it....
http://www.nukeworker.com/other/articles/have_enough_time.shtml
-
ANSI 3.1 "Selection and Qualification of Nuclear Power Plant Personnel" replaced ANSI N18.1 (of the same title), and according to the American Nuclear Society website, was re-issued in 1993 and then revised again in 1999. I too have failed at finding a copy without having to pay for it!
Nevertheless, I believe Mr. Eric Bartlett is correct. The expectation is that the two years of working experience be computed based upon the equivalent of having worked 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year. Years past, folks got their two years of experience working 12 hours a day, 7-days per week, in a liitle over one year. Sadly, a number of those folks gained "their experience" by sitting hatch watch or playing cards in the break room.
The regulators have put an end to that, for the most part. Utilities are now more vigilant at reviewing resumes, and although your resume may state you're an ANSI 3.1 tech, you may not be hired on in that capacity.
We've touched on this topic before. Utilties, with the encouragement of the Nuclear Eenrgy Institute and other regulators, are moving towards a universal task qualification system, whereby your individual qualifications will be entered into the "Personnel Acccess Database" (PADS) by the utility as you qualify to the tasks, and will then be accessible by all utiltiies. The expectation will be that you meet specific qualifications in order to be classified as a senior health physics technician, regardless of time or what your resume says. The industry is moving towards verifiable proof of a trained and qualified HP workforce.
-
Thank you Eric for the explanation and thank you Gone Sailin'. Good article (except the links wouldn't work for me). It still answered a lot of my questions.
Eric, how do the plants get away with signing off on someone? I've worked several jobs where people with the same "in plant" qualifications as me have been bumped up to senior techs. Are the plants just taking a chance that something won't go wrong where they're held accountable and have to prove the person's time?
In response to SST's post, unfortunately I've worked some plants where "meeting specific qualifications regardless of time" would never happen. Some plants have been generous with letting a Jr. jump in with the Sr. and do valve breeches, diver coverage, etc. Other plants I've worked you can't get off the SOP even if you're kicking and screaming.
I'm just really frustrated as I feel I can smear and clear anything you could send my way or handle just about any situation that could come across a SOP. I'm eager to move on and broaden my horizons.
-
I'm just really frustrated as I feel I can smear and clear anything you could send my way or handle just about any situation that could come across a SOP. I'm eager to move on and broaden my horizons.
I feel your pain. These are great questions. One of my concerns is more along the lines of what I don't know. Learning and having the ability to learn are really two different things. I don't have a degree in a science. I often find myself a bit overwhelmed by the things that we have to know and what there is still to learn.
I dare say, I feel some of this is bigger than my brain. This may be a good thing as it causes me to question more readily, the tasks I am less experianced with. I'm sure there are many of us in this field, that feel the same. I do, I think, have one of, if not the most important traits. That being common sense. I have seen that as lacking in some techs. Those who just do it by the numbers and if it goes south, they are lost.
I want to do what I do and do it well. We all do. Standardization could solve this problem and maybe with Bartlett being the leader in the industry(like it or not), We will all end up on the same sheet of music. Same requirments, same testing, same quals, same goal.
NEXT>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
-
Here are some other links you may want to consider reading in an effort to understand the qualification issue (from the perspective of someone who has been cited by the NRC for vendor techs that don't meet the ANSI, it is a tangled web):
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/radiation/hppos/hppos238.html
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/radiation/hppos/hppos022.html
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/radiation/hppos/hppos021.html
For those with Dual qualfications:
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/radiation/hppos/hppos067.html
Specifically mentioning Vendor Techs:
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/radiation/hppos/hppos019.html
-
Here is a story I remember about sign offs at Surry a long time ago.
On Friday a guy was a Sr. Deconner. Monday a Jr. HP. Before the outage was over, a Sr. HP. When questioned, the reply was "we need Sr. and he is a good guy"
So the recruiters have to follow the requirements, it is the utilities who can use them any way they like.
Now with the DOE, anyone who passes the Core is in there, even with very minimal experience.
-
The best place to find the actual ANSI standard is your local unemployment office. They're the ones that have to look up job desciptions when you go to file your claim.
-
Specifically mentioning Vendor Techs:
http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/radiation/hppos/hppos019.html
HiCountry ~ Thanks. Good information.
"For contractor HP Techs, 2,000 or more working hours in a period of not less than 40 weeks is acceptable as representing one year of experience." I like that.
Sorry Eric although I thank you and appreciate your offer in helping me reach my goal.
A big concern I have with some of the plants I've worked is with the lack of opportunites they're giving Jr. RP/HP Techs. The standards say two years experience is required for a Jr. to become an 18.1. If the plant is scared to let a Jr. tag along with the seniors and learn, or just doesn't give them the opportunity, what good is the Jr. going to be when it's time for them to become a senior? Somewhere, sometime they will become a senior when the plant is in a crunch for techs. These plants are going to have seniors in containment who have no clue what they're doing (I still have an awful lot to learn). I've had upper management agree with me on this topic, but they don't seem to be willing to change the opportunity factor.
How about an ANSI standard that says a certain amount of hours should be given to a Jr. to tag along with seniors and/or perform certain senior tasks under the guidance of a senior. It would help.
Like Surveyors_mato, I'm blessed with common sense, a questioning attitude, and try to learn all I can so I am proficient in my job.
-
Common sense? Questioning attitude? Yer doomed man. See if you can get a job selling vacuum cleaners because you'll soon be blackballed from every site in the country (Commercial AND DOE).
Seriously....I don't think the 'plants' are afraid to have you tagging along, but since the beancounters assumed full control, the plants have had to cut back on staffing an you aren't being paid to 'tag along.' In their minds, the have a specific job for you, and every minute you spend not doing that job is wasted money.
If you're up for it, you might see if you can 'tag along' during you break times. They ought to be more receptive to that.
-
The best place to find the actual ANSI standard is your local unemployment office. They're the ones that have to look up job desciptions when you go to file your claim.
Excellent suggestion! Just remember that some plants use different versions (years) of the ANSI standard as a licensing basis, and some never update it!
-
well I didnt read all the reply's but hear is one that will bake your noodle.
There are a lot of people thinking that there going to get a bunch of time spent at a DOE facility for HP work , going twards being a 3.1 . If Im not mistaken I think there is a big difference between the two and I dont think they give you all that much time for it because of the differences.
the other side is what I read a few posts ago , that in DOE world if you pass the CORE test then your an RCT. do they start them out as a jr's like we do and build up there time or is it getting thrown right to the wolves?
-
DOE time basically counts the same as power plant time. The distinction is not based on where you worked, but what you did. If you were only required to count air samples as a part of your duties as a chemistry tech, that time wouldn't count at all. But if you are a chem tech who gets transferred to RP during outages, you can count all of that time. Likewise, if you worked in an Anti-C laundering facility and spent most of your time sorting, washing and folding, and some of your time doing routine surveys of the facility - then only the time doing surveys counts.
You don't have to keep a log or anything. Just figure what percentage of your time is devoted toward Health Physics and use that to determine the total time.
-
DOE time basically counts the same as power plant time. The distinction is not based on where you worked, but what you did. If you were only required to count air samples as a part of your duties as a chemistry tech, that time wouldn't count at all. But if you are a chem tech who gets transferred to RP during outages, you can count all of that time. Likewise, if you worked in an Anti-C laundering facility and spent most of your time sorting, washing and folding, and some of your time doing routine surveys of the facility - then only the time doing surveys counts.
You don't have to keep a log or anything. Just figure what percentage of your time is devoted toward Health Physics and use that to determine the total time.
There are some exceptions to this, at least I've experienced and seen some exceptions when it comes to individual plant qualification criteria - some plants will give you 1 for 1 as far as counting DOE HP towards commercial time, some - not many. Most work it this way, and remember this is just a general "rule", at least from what I have observed in trying to staff them.
18.1 sites will generally grant 1 for 1 up to 12 total months DOE experience to count towards commercial time, that 12 mo's plus 12 mo's of commercial time will generally make a tech qualified to be an 18.1 SHP at those sites.
3.1 sites will generally grant 1 for 1 up to 24 mo's exp DOE to count towards commercial HP time, so that plus 12 mo's commercial will allow a tech to work as a 3.1 at those sites.
However I have staffed 18.1 sites that will grant up to 24 mo's DOE exp. towards commercial and 3.1 sites that will grant 36 mo's DOE exp. towards commercial. Like wise I have staffed sites that wont count DOE time or will only take minimal time, 18.1 sites giving up to 6 mo's and 3.1 sites giving up to 12 mo's credit.
Overall the set standard of qualifying resumes falls to the minimum of the ANSI standards, then to the Plant standards. For example I have sites that I staff that won't consider you a "Senior" unless you have 5 years experience. Its all case by case, plant by plant ranging from the standard ANSI quals to "stricter" quals based on the individual plants program.
Sorry if I made it more confusing, but thats the nature of the beast.
Eric
-
Actually, you just illustrated the point that a "standard" isn't much of a standard if it doesn't mean the same thing to everyone always.
Those of us who do calibrations will get my meaning.
The big problem with the ANSI standards(aside from the fact that one of them no longer officially exists and people still use it) is that it is just too stinkin' vague.
It reminds me of the old SNL bit about the guy who retired from his supervisor job at the nuke plant. His parting advice was "You can't put too much water into a nuclear reactor." The result was confusion in the control room. As he stood on the beach looking up at the sky, he told a woman, "You can't look too long at a radioactive mushroom cloud."
-
well I didnt read all the reply's but hear is one that will bake your noodle.
There are a lot of people thinking that there going to get a bunch of time spent at a DOE facility for HP work , going twards being a 3.1 . If Im not mistaken I think there is a big difference between the two and I dont think they give you all that much time for it because of the differences.
the other side is what I read a few posts ago , that in DOE world if you pass the CORE test then your an RCT. do they start them out as a jr's like we do and build up there time or is it getting thrown right to the wolves?
I worked at a Southern burial site for over 16 years as a SHP. In 1991 came to DOE as a RadCon Inspector. After 15 weeks of core training and 3 monthes of OJT's it's go getum. It did not bother me for it was nothing new, but some were way over whelmed. Most good supervisors let them work with the experienced people for a while, but it was not required.
-
I did a seach for ANCI and got the home page for a window cleaning company
I am NOT kidding!!!
talk about standards being vague.
Well at least the irony wasn't lost on me.
does any body know if we can access ANCI and review the quals via the net?
-
Try ANSI. The first thing that comes up is American National Standards Institute on Google. That's what you'd be looking for.
-
Now here's one I can sink my teeth into:
To anyone who knows me and has discussed the issue of "training" with me when I was a Jr; I apologize (By the end of my jr. time I was a bit of a grump! :o) RAD-GHOST I feel your pain.. Honestly. This particular subject is very frustrating when you are at the point you are at now >:(. The problem, as Eric and others have so aptly described, Is that the standard is anything but Standardized! Basically, Keep plugging! Eric will make you a Senior as soon as he reasonably can (I know! He had to put up w/ me and that wasn't always easy! ;))
As to training; Beercourt had some excellent ideas on that on another thread so I won't repeat it all here. I particularly like the training surcharge idea. Our training in this field is basically non-existent! This is something I have disliked for a very long time! At some point we must find a way to give jr's some meaningful experience beyond PCM watch! Many new Sr's fail or develop bad reputations for something that is really not their fault! I know everyone at the office and any Sr. techs are aware of this so the question is, What can be done about it?