NukeWorker Forum
Career Path => Radiation Safety => Topic started by: harleydad101 on May 18, 2013, 08:49
-
Who can I contact to file a complaint about a power plants so called " INPO Accredited" training program. The RP training at PSL is a joke and someone needs to bring it to the attention of INPO.
-
That isn't how INPO works.
-
I imagine it would be effective to give feedback directly to PSL.
-
Who can I contact to file a complaint about a power plants so called " INPO Accredited" training program. The RP training at PSL is a joke and someone needs to bring it to the attention of INPO.
Are you a contractor? Then you were likely NOT in the "accredited" training that the house people have. As a contractor, all they really have to do is review procedures, verify OJTs (Nantel - 14-16 I believe), familiarize you with the plant a bit, and put you to work. Your contractor company is responsible for you being what your resume says you are.
I have been to great contractor training (Diablo, CR3) and horrible. At a couple of plants, the contractor company handled the training also (SG repl w/ SGT, IIRC) Bottom line - the utility isn't really training you to be an RP tech. You are supposed to be one.
Contractors that go house have to start over (generally become unqualified at the start of training), spend months in a classroom learning RP theory, plant systems, industrial safety, etc. THAT is the "accredited" program. And that program, INPO watches very closely.
-
Institute of Nuclear Power Operations
700 Galleria Parkway, SE, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30339-5943
-
....As a contractor, all they really have to do is review procedures, verify OJTs (Nantel - 14-16 I believe),.....
Close,...
NEI 1 thru 14 is a typical expectation, the contract RP can be effective with only a partial list of verified NEI modules, it's really up to the client, I am not aware of any better pay for being current on all 14 modules, although not being current on all 14 may result in rejection of the candidate.
RMS is module 15 IIRC,...
If the candidate is current on items such as the NUF, NEI 1 thru 14 (and any vendor supplied certificates required for the position to which they have been posted), then any candidate with the expectation they should be provided "full boat" qualifications (ala TMI circa 1988) will be disappointed. The expectation is that a "3.1 Senior > 7 years" (such as the original poster) should be able to walk on to a commercial site such as Port St. Lucie with his/her NEI and NUF current. If they are not current it is expected that same candidate should be able to pass the NUF without study, review applicable procedures (plus pass a procedure comprehension test), and accomplish the OJT's for the NEI 1 through 14 within a 40 hour week.
3.1 Seniors with >7 years should not need more than that to be effective as staff augmentation or supplemental employees. That is what the resume is supposed to validate, the resume validates the candidate is already an expert at their craft, an expert does not require a four to six week training program to be fully competent,...
Juniors do,...that's why they are paid less,... [coffee]
(edit,..if-then statements lack a bit of oomph when you infer but do not include the "then")
-
I was a house tech there. Recently some people I know have been telling me what they are going through. I was just wondering, thanks for all the input and replies.
-
Are you a contractor? Then you were likely NOT in the "accredited" training that the house people have. As a contractor, all they really have to do is review procedures, verify OJTs (Nantel - 14-16 I believe), familiarize you with the plant a bit, and put you to work. Your contractor company is responsible for you being what your resume says you are.
I have been to great contractor training (Diablo, CR3) and horrible. At a couple of plants, the contractor company handled the training also (SG repl w/ SGT, IIRC) Bottom line - the utility isn't really training you to be an RP tech. You are supposed to be one.
Contractors that go house have to start over (generally become unqualified at the start of training), spend months in a classroom learning RP theory, plant systems, industrial safety, etc. THAT is the "accredited" program. And that program, INPO watches very closely.
Yes Housedad, the months of the training they go through is what I'm talking about. Four months of "here's the material, study, learn and you will be tested on it in two weeks." No in class instruction at all. Is that 'accredited' ?
-
Well, not being there, I wouldn't know. Were you in the class? Or is this someone's description?
When i went through initial training, there was lots of the material that we were on self study for - c'mon, it's not brain surgury... Some of the techs had problems with instrument theory, and plant systems was taught by a SRO cert IIRC.
But yeah, if that's really the level of instruction, it does sound below the standards of the industry...
-
I was an instructor in two INPO Accredited training programs and monitored (or assisted) self-study is not unusual. It is the degree of monitoring and mentoring that makes of breaks the program. Some programs are better suited to this method than others as are some subjects within each discipline. It does not take long to figure out which students will require additional help and which ones are fine on their own. It is just as unfair to the 'faster' students to make them keep up with the slower ones as the reverse. Most of the 'core' materials are standardized and apply to many disciplines while others are specific to one work group. When teaching cross-disclipline subjects (such as heat transfer to RP techs) I always made sure I covered the whole subject in class. When covering math I only taught to the ones that needed it. When covering subjects that should be familiar to all but entry level students (such as basic chemistry to chem techs or contamination controls to RP techs) it was pretty much each at their own pace and on to the test... unless someone was having specific problems.
These programs when properly set up are a very good balance of individual effort and instructor involvement and are quite successful. The most important thing in a program like this is to let the instructor know there are problems before they become major.
One of the places I taught was at Turkey Point, which is part of the same utility as PSL (I was also their Instructional Technologist for a little while.) I am currently at PSL but have nothing to do with their training program (nor have I gone through it except as a contract technician.) I do, however, know quite a few people in the training department. I am willing to bet that the situation is not as bad as described to you (or may be the description fits some subjects but not others.) I am also willing to bet that if the individual that feels less than properly trained brought up specific areas when he (she) was having difficulty, the problem would be well addressed. I guarantee that if the situation is as described for all subjects and the students are left out to dry that it will be discovered during or well before the next re-accreditation cycle. Things like that do not go unnoticed for long. Training programs that don't do their jobs go on probation and that gets very expensive.
-
Troja,
I love reading your stories. Thank you very much for contributing. I even took a quote from one of your posts about the NUF/NEU and quoted you in the next edition of NUF Cram notes.
-
As a high school teacher, I ran into this all the time. Always the teachers fault, never the student.