On my Anniversary I made my last blog entries and in the ensuing month have reflected on my blogs. It was a very busy time both at home and at work. K finished her last semester’s work and graduated. Both of the older kids were very busy with B going to France and being in the school play and H dancing 2 or 3 days a week. And as always there is Jack, he is growing so fast and is indeed a handful. He can actually make words and understands what we are saying most of the time. Simultaneously at work we were going through one of the “tough periods” in the process and were helping out on weekends at the plant, trying to get out of a refueling outage. Since then we put the fence in the back yard and are working on several other outdoor projects.
For blogging in general, many bloggers forget that their comments are in the public forum and are mainly available for public consumption. There are concerns in the business world that if a blogger makes some comment or confession, may have a negative effect on current or future employment. I have heard on more than one occasion, of a HR representative “googling” a potential employee, as a character reference. At the very least, some of these comments in professional, personal and military blogs, do tend to sound like whining.
On a personal level, I’m a busy guy with a wife and kids and work stuff, I really don’t have time to deal with negativity and need to efficiently use that time that I have to fulfill my commitments and to take care of myself. Additionally, I am working through “letting go” of the negativity that I picked up during my last assignment in the Navy. There were a lot of super positive things that I got out of that tour but there were a lot of negative as well, so many in fact that only a year into it, K indicated that I needed to transfer to the fleet reserve.
On a professional level, I feel lucky to have a job this year, in this economy, to be able to feed and house my family. As for the licensing method/process here at “the plant,” there are many layers resistance to change, for reasons that include self preservation, pride and self importance, in reality a lack of the teamwork that was stressed in the training environment in my last job. This leads to an environment in which much lip service is paid to the student feedback process but in reality is a colossal waste of energy and a great source of frustration and negativity. In evaluating the situation in the operations and training departments at “the plant” it appears that a professional blog that criticizes the license training method/process is a source of the very negativity that I am trying so hard to eliminate and just might not be a wise idea.
To that end, dear readers, I will limit my entries on “it’s your license to get” to answering specific questions about my nuclear activities and will endeavor to make some more meaningful entries on “thinking nuclear.”
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
bad things that I experienced on Philly
I wrote this post to put on bubbleheads blog but am posting it here to keep the clutter down over there.
I saw some bad things happen on the Philly, and not the operational or nuclear kind (RB was XO for a part of this). These were the kind of things that were personnel related that created an environment that led to failure. I will use my ENG as an example. He was so lazy that I could not get him to come to the engine room for records review, and when I had the RCA deliver the material history and data notebooks for their monthly review, we “operated” out of WRSR 1 for a week. He didn’t care, I mean really didn’t care, not one bit. He was more concerned with making plans for his post naval career and getting rack-time. The CO noted the missed review on a quarterly review/command monitor. This sounds like an issue to be taken care of behind the Wardroom door, but whatever action was taken, it failed. The eventual solution was for me to take the associated records and the RCA to WRSR 1 and physically block the ENG in until he had “reviewed” them. In this time period, the department Chief’s had several meetings with squadron (CMC) about issues in the department. Our squadron counterparts knew this was happening and we were told by them and by the CO that firing him (the ENG) was not an option because there were no replacements out there for him.
The command climate/philosophy issue was this: don’t do anything that might discredit the CO or get him undue attention from outside the command (good or bad).
OK, so here’s the disclaimer: I gathered this data from talking to men who had served with the CO in several commands and its all second hand. I hesitate to blog on it, as it may sound like a character assignation attempt, however; I’ve been retired long enough that the sting has almost left and I have forgiven him for the injuries (real and imagined) that he inflicted on me.
The story goes like this: the CO was the ENG on the Memphis when the microprocessors were installed. His following assignments at the squadron level and his XO tour had set him on the fast track to the “line locker.” He had initially negotiated orders to a boomer that was finishing an Availability with some “missile work.” The idea was that he was only going to sea for two patrol cycles after the yard and then off to NAVSEA. The PCO who was scheduled for Philly didn’t pass tactics in PCO school. Allegedly, he found out what a huge pain in the butt that a DDS boat is, both operationally and logistically and didn’t want the hassle. So, as he was already at the parent squadron, he got the Philly and just wanted to “get thru it.”
I saw some bad things happen on the Philly, and not the operational or nuclear kind (RB was XO for a part of this). These were the kind of things that were personnel related that created an environment that led to failure. I will use my ENG as an example. He was so lazy that I could not get him to come to the engine room for records review, and when I had the RCA deliver the material history and data notebooks for their monthly review, we “operated” out of WRSR 1 for a week. He didn’t care, I mean really didn’t care, not one bit. He was more concerned with making plans for his post naval career and getting rack-time. The CO noted the missed review on a quarterly review/command monitor. This sounds like an issue to be taken care of behind the Wardroom door, but whatever action was taken, it failed. The eventual solution was for me to take the associated records and the RCA to WRSR 1 and physically block the ENG in until he had “reviewed” them. In this time period, the department Chief’s had several meetings with squadron (CMC) about issues in the department. Our squadron counterparts knew this was happening and we were told by them and by the CO that firing him (the ENG) was not an option because there were no replacements out there for him.
The command climate/philosophy issue was this: don’t do anything that might discredit the CO or get him undue attention from outside the command (good or bad).
OK, so here’s the disclaimer: I gathered this data from talking to men who had served with the CO in several commands and its all second hand. I hesitate to blog on it, as it may sound like a character assignation attempt, however; I’ve been retired long enough that the sting has almost left and I have forgiven him for the injuries (real and imagined) that he inflicted on me.
The story goes like this: the CO was the ENG on the Memphis when the microprocessors were installed. His following assignments at the squadron level and his XO tour had set him on the fast track to the “line locker.” He had initially negotiated orders to a boomer that was finishing an Availability with some “missile work.” The idea was that he was only going to sea for two patrol cycles after the yard and then off to NAVSEA. The PCO who was scheduled for Philly didn’t pass tactics in PCO school. Allegedly, he found out what a huge pain in the butt that a DDS boat is, both operationally and logistically and didn’t want the hassle. So, as he was already at the parent squadron, he got the Philly and just wanted to “get thru it.”
Monday, March 23, 2009
Change is………good?
We had a meeting with the site VP, the superintendent of Operations, Operations training manager, Operations Manager and all of the instructors on Friday. It looked bad, like the class was going to be canceled or something similar and it was, in a way. The staffing at the other unit sucks, and this is causing the SRO’s at that unit to want off of shift even more and the lack of availability of positions is causing them the same SRO’s to leave. So, in an effort to stem this hemorage, our class was changed to Unit 2. This is a definite issue with some of us, so much in fact that we will most likely lose 2 candidates, one RO and one SRO. My initial reaction is that from a field operator or licensed RO point of view, Unit 2 sucks because of the layout of the plant, but that the newer control room components may be nicer in the long run. As an aside, Unit 1 was licensed and operating before TMI-2 and Unit 2 was re-modeled and licensed after. It makes a huge difference in layout, but not so much in system operations. More updates as they occur!!
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Thursday, March 12, 2009
more cautious advice
Here is the last of the scoop that I'm sending to my young nuclear buddie (minus the summary), for your enjoyment!!
So what does it take to get into a SRO program at a commercial plant? Lets start off with what the actual regulations are here (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/power-reactors/active/01-008/) and basically say that you need 2 years of experience in a “reactor operator” role. This is the reason for the interpretation of 2 years as an EWS, for non-RO navy guys. For my plant if you were in the navy at all and have a bachelors degree in an engineering field, you can get in. I will warn you that there are many companies (mine included) that will try to get a guy like you to start out in the non licensed role “to get some experience.” This is because, industry wide the work force is aging and they are desperate for all operators. This is how I ended up where I am, along with the fact that the SUBASE in Groton was on the BRAC list and none of the normal government contractors were hiring when I got out. I have a lot more experience in the plant and will have a much easier time in systems training than a SRO candidate off the street, but once you hire in, the company can decline to take your application for SRO until it is a their convenience (once again, my experience).
As for pay and overtime, I can only vouch for my plant which is unionized. The top step non licensed operator makes about 32$ an hour, RO’s make about 38$ an hour with a 5$ an hour bonus and standard rate (negotiable) for SRO’s is about 100K per year. We are currently working a 6 shift schedule with one week of afternoons, one week of midnights, one week of training days, and 2 weeks inplant daylights. Its not a bad schedule if you can handle the backshifts. The NLO’s and RO’s work some overtime, the “hogs” make a bundle (from 100K to 130K) but are always on site working overtime. They get time and a half for their “Saturdays” and doubletime for their “Sundays” so the overtime pay adds up quick. The SRO’s make overtime at a straight time rate, but at least get paid for it which is more than I can say for you guys. The company makes a 50% contributition to your 401K up to 3% (you put in 6% they put in 3%) and pays prorate for college courses, like for your masters degree. I can only assume that the other utilities are paying similarly, with area cost of living corrected.
So what does it take to get into a SRO program at a commercial plant? Lets start off with what the actual regulations are here (http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/reg-guides/power-reactors/active/01-008/) and basically say that you need 2 years of experience in a “reactor operator” role. This is the reason for the interpretation of 2 years as an EWS, for non-RO navy guys. For my plant if you were in the navy at all and have a bachelors degree in an engineering field, you can get in. I will warn you that there are many companies (mine included) that will try to get a guy like you to start out in the non licensed role “to get some experience.” This is because, industry wide the work force is aging and they are desperate for all operators. This is how I ended up where I am, along with the fact that the SUBASE in Groton was on the BRAC list and none of the normal government contractors were hiring when I got out. I have a lot more experience in the plant and will have a much easier time in systems training than a SRO candidate off the street, but once you hire in, the company can decline to take your application for SRO until it is a their convenience (once again, my experience).
As for pay and overtime, I can only vouch for my plant which is unionized. The top step non licensed operator makes about 32$ an hour, RO’s make about 38$ an hour with a 5$ an hour bonus and standard rate (negotiable) for SRO’s is about 100K per year. We are currently working a 6 shift schedule with one week of afternoons, one week of midnights, one week of training days, and 2 weeks inplant daylights. Its not a bad schedule if you can handle the backshifts. The NLO’s and RO’s work some overtime, the “hogs” make a bundle (from 100K to 130K) but are always on site working overtime. They get time and a half for their “Saturdays” and doubletime for their “Sundays” so the overtime pay adds up quick. The SRO’s make overtime at a straight time rate, but at least get paid for it which is more than I can say for you guys. The company makes a 50% contributition to your 401K up to 3% (you put in 6% they put in 3%) and pays prorate for college courses, like for your masters degree. I can only assume that the other utilities are paying similarly, with area cost of living corrected.
Cautious advice!?!
One of my readers sent me and email this week and asked me for some advice concerning his term in the Navy and transitioning to the commercial industry. I only had enough time to send him my thoughts on his Navy time but will generate something on the comercial industry later. Here it is for your enjoyment:
Man, do I wish that I had your options! I will give you the same advice that I gave to my last several guys in your position when I was on active duty. Keep in mind that the economy was in much better shape and that there were a lot of jobs out there. Hey, be a savvy nuke. The navy promised you a boatload of stuff to get you to enlist, make sure that you get it all before you let them off the hook. The GI bill, advanced qualification (EWS), and other cool stuff is what you can get if you have the perseverance to make the navy give them to you. It might not sound too sweet now but here is what I would do:
Firstly, adopt a pseudo-lifer attitude. Keep your nose clean, be on time, have a sat haircut, don’t smell like booze (all of the time). Tell your goat (EMC) that you want to qualify EWS and start showing up at training. Don’t really ask, just do it. If anyone gives you a hard time, ask the XO why it is so hard to just get ahead in the engineering department and schmooze up the EDMC. It may seem fake, but you will need to have some “political skills” when you get into the real world anyway. Consider it an exercise in character. You don’t have to like it just do it long enough to get thru your board. For an EM this qual is like gold in the commercial industry.
Second, start talking up p-type. Like when the EDMC or ENG or XO can hear you. Sound cautiously interested. If you demonstrate significant interest you will get “command attention.” Once you get the attention you want, get the command to do the bargaining for you. Just remember that no matter what the XO says, he really can’t get you orders. Once you get to prototype, there are several colleges that will cater to you taking on campus classes or doing distance learning. You NEED to finish your degree before you get into the crap in the commercial world. So go there and get it done. Don’t get distracted by those Charleston hotties or the babes in the spa at Ballston.
Thirdly, hold out talking about reenlisting until the very last. Make it a bargaining tool for yourself. Remember that the money isn’t worth it but, the other benefits and the money just may be. Bargain for all that you can get including quals as EWS as a second (my ET2 did it) or the best orders. And remember, that if things don’t go right or you get pissed, you never, NEVER have to reenlistment or sign the contract. Even on the day of your ceremony.
Man, do I wish that I had your options! I will give you the same advice that I gave to my last several guys in your position when I was on active duty. Keep in mind that the economy was in much better shape and that there were a lot of jobs out there. Hey, be a savvy nuke. The navy promised you a boatload of stuff to get you to enlist, make sure that you get it all before you let them off the hook. The GI bill, advanced qualification (EWS), and other cool stuff is what you can get if you have the perseverance to make the navy give them to you. It might not sound too sweet now but here is what I would do:
Firstly, adopt a pseudo-lifer attitude. Keep your nose clean, be on time, have a sat haircut, don’t smell like booze (all of the time). Tell your goat (EMC) that you want to qualify EWS and start showing up at training. Don’t really ask, just do it. If anyone gives you a hard time, ask the XO why it is so hard to just get ahead in the engineering department and schmooze up the EDMC. It may seem fake, but you will need to have some “political skills” when you get into the real world anyway. Consider it an exercise in character. You don’t have to like it just do it long enough to get thru your board. For an EM this qual is like gold in the commercial industry.
Second, start talking up p-type. Like when the EDMC or ENG or XO can hear you. Sound cautiously interested. If you demonstrate significant interest you will get “command attention.” Once you get the attention you want, get the command to do the bargaining for you. Just remember that no matter what the XO says, he really can’t get you orders. Once you get to prototype, there are several colleges that will cater to you taking on campus classes or doing distance learning. You NEED to finish your degree before you get into the crap in the commercial world. So go there and get it done. Don’t get distracted by those Charleston hotties or the babes in the spa at Ballston.
Thirdly, hold out talking about reenlisting until the very last. Make it a bargaining tool for yourself. Remember that the money isn’t worth it but, the other benefits and the money just may be. Bargain for all that you can get including quals as EWS as a second (my ET2 did it) or the best orders. And remember, that if things don’t go right or you get pissed, you never, NEVER have to reenlistment or sign the contract. Even on the day of your ceremony.
Monday, March 9, 2009
moving forward??
The questions in question were indeed the controller and fuel defect questions. By Friday we had convinced the staff that the controller question was OK, and when the “interim exam key” came out excepting both answers, the whole issue became mute.
There are several differences in the Navy and commercial schools of thought and one was illustrated by the exam. The commercial industry does not mathematically include the terms for reactivity addition and source neutrons in the reactor period equation. One of my esteemed classmates is in the process of getting his masters degree in nuclear engineering and is familiar with derivation of the period equation. He agrees that several of the misunderstandings that our other classmates had would have been avoided had these factors been included. The other part of this issue is that the commercial industry (at lease here) stresses reactor period vice SUR for their classroom instruction and testing. This leads to inaccuracies in conceptualization for questions like the effect of changing the average effective delayed neutron fraction over core life. Using the SUR equation, it is easy to see this effect, using reactor period is more difficult.
As for this particular exam, I did get a 98%. Please believe me when I say that I am not bragging. If you can pass NPS and get thru NPTU, you should be able to ace this exam. I have a particular problem of often answering overly simple questions completely wrong. I call this “head in ass syndrome” and did a great job overcoming it during this phase of training. I started with missing an average of 3 questions to this syndrome per exam to 1. This is not perfect but a marked improvement.
This morning we started the systems portion of the training process with some basic print reading and some test taking techniques. At the outset it would seem that these topics would have been more effective prior to the GFES exams but they are painfully in depth for our plant. Once again, if you have ever been at the schematic level in a tech manual, you can make this work. Right now I’m just trying to stay awake……
There are several differences in the Navy and commercial schools of thought and one was illustrated by the exam. The commercial industry does not mathematically include the terms for reactivity addition and source neutrons in the reactor period equation. One of my esteemed classmates is in the process of getting his masters degree in nuclear engineering and is familiar with derivation of the period equation. He agrees that several of the misunderstandings that our other classmates had would have been avoided had these factors been included. The other part of this issue is that the commercial industry (at lease here) stresses reactor period vice SUR for their classroom instruction and testing. This leads to inaccuracies in conceptualization for questions like the effect of changing the average effective delayed neutron fraction over core life. Using the SUR equation, it is easy to see this effect, using reactor period is more difficult.
As for this particular exam, I did get a 98%. Please believe me when I say that I am not bragging. If you can pass NPS and get thru NPTU, you should be able to ace this exam. I have a particular problem of often answering overly simple questions completely wrong. I call this “head in ass syndrome” and did a great job overcoming it during this phase of training. I started with missing an average of 3 questions to this syndrome per exam to 1. This is not perfect but a marked improvement.
This morning we started the systems portion of the training process with some basic print reading and some test taking techniques. At the outset it would seem that these topics would have been more effective prior to the GFES exams but they are painfully in depth for our plant. Once again, if you have ever been at the schematic level in a tech manual, you can make this work. Right now I’m just trying to stay awake……
Friday, March 6, 2009
The GFES saga continues.......
You may think that after taking the actual exam, that the candidates would know if they passed or failed in short order. The truth is that much like the rest of the government, the NRC is bound by its own red tape. Here’s the rundown of how it’s going for us.
27 February, the exams came on site. The instructors that reviewed the exams or were proctors had to sign a statement to the NRC that they had no “technical” conversations with the students prior or during the exam period.
01 March, the instructors took the exam to generate the “preliminary onsite key.”
03 March, the exams were administered and Fedexed back to the NRC. All of the sites administering the test did so at the same time (i.e. east coast started at 1200, west coast started at 0900). We were not allowed to have any electronics or access to phones during the exam period (until 1500). As part of the unofficial evaluation, the instructors and the class reviewed each question and came up with a “best guess answer,” using the preliminary onsite key and looked for questions that may have not had a correct answer or may have had more than one correct answer.
06 March, when the NRC has received all of the exams, they will transmit via email their “preliminary” answer key. This key is preliminary because if there are challenges to the exam or key, they will be evaluated before the final key is sent out
??? the final answer key is out and the final grades are approved once all challenges are answered.
I am not concerned by the bureaucracy as I either scored a 94, 96 or 98, I just find it kind of amusing.
The rest of the “funny” associated with the exam is that one of the instructors that took the test, is hell bent that one of the answers is wrong and needs to be challenged and the rest of us think that it is just fine. He got it wrong by the way (and yes he is an @##$$).
27 February, the exams came on site. The instructors that reviewed the exams or were proctors had to sign a statement to the NRC that they had no “technical” conversations with the students prior or during the exam period.
01 March, the instructors took the exam to generate the “preliminary onsite key.”
03 March, the exams were administered and Fedexed back to the NRC. All of the sites administering the test did so at the same time (i.e. east coast started at 1200, west coast started at 0900). We were not allowed to have any electronics or access to phones during the exam period (until 1500). As part of the unofficial evaluation, the instructors and the class reviewed each question and came up with a “best guess answer,” using the preliminary onsite key and looked for questions that may have not had a correct answer or may have had more than one correct answer.
06 March, when the NRC has received all of the exams, they will transmit via email their “preliminary” answer key. This key is preliminary because if there are challenges to the exam or key, they will be evaluated before the final key is sent out
??? the final answer key is out and the final grades are approved once all challenges are answered.
I am not concerned by the bureaucracy as I either scored a 94, 96 or 98, I just find it kind of amusing.
The rest of the “funny” associated with the exam is that one of the instructors that took the test, is hell bent that one of the answers is wrong and needs to be challenged and the rest of us think that it is just fine. He got it wrong by the way (and yes he is an @##$$).
Miss Atom? you have to love the Russians
Looking at the PROS website the other day, I found that the former soviet republics have a Miss Atom contest each year. At first the thought is ludicrous, but on further inspection (and translation) it is a spotlight on careers in infrastructure and engineering for women. And hey, they are cute too. Check it out at http://miss2009.nuclear.ru/?from=300 and you may want to open a bablefish window to find out that all they want is a good job, a good husband and world peace.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
What it takes to get through GFES (so far)
So every successful person wants to share his/her insights and such on how to get ahead, right? Well here is how it is for us and we have all been successful (so far). I will use today’s subject as an example. I hope you enjoy the info and the irony. By the way, the company has been gregarious enough to provide us with laptop computers and a wireless network with all of the training materials provided in advance. The topic in question is “Demineralizers and Ion Exchangers.”
Yesterday afternoon, uploaded the powerpoint presentation and the student handout. Reviewed all 117 slides and discovered that the first 20 slides were review questions from previous topics and the last 10 were review questions from this topic, and there were 5 slides of objectives. Reviewed the student handout’s 15 pages. Uploaded the topic NRC exam bank questions and answered all of the questions (once) using the provided material.
This morning opened the powerpoint, and topic NRC exam bank on computer, obtained hard copy student handout from initial non-licensed training course. During class reviewed the NRC exam bank and student text while the instructor was presenting the powerpoint and highlighted exam answers and calculation techniques in the student text.
Following the 2.5 hour presentation and lunch with blog posting, answered the entire topic NRC exam bank..again. With several hours left of the day, review reactor theory and thermo.
And so it goes
Yesterday afternoon, uploaded the powerpoint presentation and the student handout. Reviewed all 117 slides and discovered that the first 20 slides were review questions from previous topics and the last 10 were review questions from this topic, and there were 5 slides of objectives. Reviewed the student handout’s 15 pages. Uploaded the topic NRC exam bank questions and answered all of the questions (once) using the provided material.
This morning opened the powerpoint, and topic NRC exam bank on computer, obtained hard copy student handout from initial non-licensed training course. During class reviewed the NRC exam bank and student text while the instructor was presenting the powerpoint and highlighted exam answers and calculation techniques in the student text.
Following the 2.5 hour presentation and lunch with blog posting, answered the entire topic NRC exam bank..again. With several hours left of the day, review reactor theory and thermo.
And so it goes
Peering sadly into freedom???
Or a view from our classroom window. Well it’s not that bad, but it does get oppressive at times. I had the camera in the class room to upload the Monday Jack and snapped a few pics. I would have posted earlier but the department superintendent was observing our training and I figured it would be in poor taste to be on the internet during class time with him here. I’ll post something else soon
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
the dreaded queston #75
This was a modified question from the NRC Bank. The reason that the instructors picked this question was “to illustrate that memorizing the exam bank” was not desired. The funny response when half of the class missed the question was “got ya!!” The response, initially, did not actually address the possibility that the question or the distractors were substandard. There were some relatively snide emails that passed between the instructors and our department mentors and managers and at least one of them was good enough to pass it along to the students. On further investigation, it was revealed that the question could be worked at least two ways and that the stem of the question had been incorrectly modified. In all, it took a week before the dubious quality of the question was acknowledged by the staff. Here is the original question followed by the modified question. If you want to do the calculations you will need your steam tables!! Enjoy!!!
TOPIC: 191006
KNOWLEDGE: K1.13 [2.8/2.9]
QID: P2984 (B2084)
The following 100% rated power conditions existed before a nuclear power plant outage:
Main condenser pressure: 1.20 psia
Cooling water inlet temperature: 60F
Cooling water outlet temperature: 92F
During the outage, 6% of the main condenser tubes were plugged. After the outage, the following 100% rated power conditions exist:
Main condenser pressure: 1.31 psia
Cooling water inlet temperature: 60F
Cooling water outlet temperature: ?
Which one of the following is the approximate cooling water outlet temperature after the outage?
A. 92F
B. 94F
C. 96F
D. 98F
___________________________________________________________
The following 100% rated power conditions existed before a nuclear power plant outage:
Main condenser pressure: 1.20 psia
Cooling water inlet temperature: 60F
Cooling water outlet temperature: 92F
During the outage, 6% of the main condenser tubes were plugged. After the outage, the following 100% rated power conditions exist:
Main condenser pressure: 1.35 psia
Cooling water inlet temperature: 60F
Cooling water outlet temperature: ?
Which one of the following is the approximate cooling water outlet temperature after the outage?
A. 92F
B. 94F
C. 96F
D. 98F
TOPIC: 191006
KNOWLEDGE: K1.13 [2.8/2.9]
QID: P2984 (B2084)
The following 100% rated power conditions existed before a nuclear power plant outage:
Main condenser pressure: 1.20 psia
Cooling water inlet temperature: 60F
Cooling water outlet temperature: 92F
During the outage, 6% of the main condenser tubes were plugged. After the outage, the following 100% rated power conditions exist:
Main condenser pressure: 1.31 psia
Cooling water inlet temperature: 60F
Cooling water outlet temperature: ?
Which one of the following is the approximate cooling water outlet temperature after the outage?
A. 92F
B. 94F
C. 96F
D. 98F
___________________________________________________________
The following 100% rated power conditions existed before a nuclear power plant outage:
Main condenser pressure: 1.20 psia
Cooling water inlet temperature: 60F
Cooling water outlet temperature: 92F
During the outage, 6% of the main condenser tubes were plugged. After the outage, the following 100% rated power conditions exist:
Main condenser pressure: 1.35 psia
Cooling water inlet temperature: 60F
Cooling water outlet temperature: ?
Which one of the following is the approximate cooling water outlet temperature after the outage?
A. 92F
B. 94F
C. 96F
D. 98F
License class examinations/quizzes/tests
The first phase of NRC licensing is the Generic Fundamentals Examination. “A Generic Fundamentals Examination (GFE) consists of 50 multiple-choice test items that examine applicant knowledge in three broad categories of nuclear power plant fundamentals: Components, Reactor Theory, and Thermodynamics. Each category contains several major topics, with multiple subtopics, or knowledges. Applicants must successfully pass the GFE with a score of 80 percent before they are eligible to take a facility-specific examination that if also successfully passed may lead to an NRC reactor operator license. The GFE web site provides access to all test items that have appeared on a GFE and all GFEs that have been administered since January 2001.” (http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operator-licensing/generic-fundamentals-examinations/general-information.html)
The screening for the questions and distracters’ is quite extensive as I have previously stated. When generating an exam, they use 80% questions directly from the bank, modify 10% and make up 10% new questions with the new and modified questions also meeting the same screening.
To keep up with the standard, the training department uses the same criteria for making our module quizzes and tests; however, occasionally the screening process is somewhat less than perfect as was evidenced by a question on our module final for thermodynamics.
The screening for the questions and distracters’ is quite extensive as I have previously stated. When generating an exam, they use 80% questions directly from the bank, modify 10% and make up 10% new questions with the new and modified questions also meeting the same screening.
To keep up with the standard, the training department uses the same criteria for making our module quizzes and tests; however, occasionally the screening process is somewhat less than perfect as was evidenced by a question on our module final for thermodynamics.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Getting What You Pay For……
While doing research on a previous post, I found some interesting in the forum at the Professional Reactor Operator Society (PROS) website, not that this is vetted information, it is what it is and may be an advertisement for other stations. TVA plants pay their Non-Licensed Operators (NLO) a bonus for each phase of training (At Sequoyah, a non licensed operator's base pay is raised ~10% when they enter license training. In addition, effective 12/6/07,each Nuclear Unit Operator trainee will receive one-time lump sum payments for successful completion of three stages of training. Successful being a passing score on the final exam for each stage of training. The amounts are: GFES $2000 Systems training $4000 TVA audit exam $5000 plus a $5000 for passing the final NRC Exam). This is on the high end and unfortunately for us, we are on the low end (we get the glory of being in the class). And as hard to believe as it is, some companies actually plan and pay for hours of extra study. I don’t expect to post any more on this as the company is pretty set.
On License class "throughput"
The issue onsite is the “thru put” of the classes that is from the first date of seating for the class to the first sign on as licensed operators. The historical average for the last several classes is about 60%. In the Navy, both when I was a student and an instructor, we measured from boot camp selection to qualification at prototype and our number was about the same. The major difference was that the Navy had an extensive selection process to weed out problem sailors prior to the expensive training at NPS and NPTU where the drop rates were in the 3-5% range. The problem with this is time and money, or money and time. The class is 18 months long and there are only enough instructors to run one class at a time. So from a fiscal standpoint, putting a class together without ensuring a high thru-put is idiocy, but we continue to do it.
Doing some online research, I found an article by Mark Rasmussen in the “Communicator” which is the official periodical of the Professional Reactor Operator Society (PROS) which directly addresses this issue. Mark says that the “narrow definition of throughput relies on the assumption that the training program has the ability to accurately identify a “bad” student. In my opinion this is a false assumption. I have seen many excellent non-licensed Operators get kicked out of license class for reasons that have nothing to do with their ultimate capability to succeed in the control room. Over the years license programs have been repeatedly compressed, packing more learning into less time. Expectations for academic performance have risen. The move to “higher order” questions means that the tests are harder (and the grades are lower). Only a Training person would claim that these higher order questions are in any way better at determining who deserves a license and who doesn’t…. going through initial class twice, the first time in the mid-eighties and then again just a few years ago. The material was pretty much the same, but the tests were much harder the second time. I did pretty well, but I saw people sitting next to me wash out that I KNOW WITH 100% CONFIDENCE would have made fine ROs. They washed out because our program was not able to discern between the student that was never going to catch on, and the student that just needed more time. When we wash out people like this, we are doing ourselves, and them, a great disservice.
Measuring throughput as the ratio of students that pass the NRC exam to the number of students in class on day one is the only legitimate way to measure it. And the bad throughput numbers in the industry today should be telling us that our training programs are flawed, just as much as they are telling us that our selection process, or the students themselves, are flawed.”
Pretty much sums it up and far more eloquently than I could have said it. Looks like a training department issue. Much more to follow on this!!
Doing some online research, I found an article by Mark Rasmussen in the “Communicator” which is the official periodical of the Professional Reactor Operator Society (PROS) which directly addresses this issue. Mark says that the “narrow definition of throughput relies on the assumption that the training program has the ability to accurately identify a “bad” student. In my opinion this is a false assumption. I have seen many excellent non-licensed Operators get kicked out of license class for reasons that have nothing to do with their ultimate capability to succeed in the control room. Over the years license programs have been repeatedly compressed, packing more learning into less time. Expectations for academic performance have risen. The move to “higher order” questions means that the tests are harder (and the grades are lower). Only a Training person would claim that these higher order questions are in any way better at determining who deserves a license and who doesn’t…. going through initial class twice, the first time in the mid-eighties and then again just a few years ago. The material was pretty much the same, but the tests were much harder the second time. I did pretty well, but I saw people sitting next to me wash out that I KNOW WITH 100% CONFIDENCE would have made fine ROs. They washed out because our program was not able to discern between the student that was never going to catch on, and the student that just needed more time. When we wash out people like this, we are doing ourselves, and them, a great disservice.
Measuring throughput as the ratio of students that pass the NRC exam to the number of students in class on day one is the only legitimate way to measure it. And the bad throughput numbers in the industry today should be telling us that our training programs are flawed, just as much as they are telling us that our selection process, or the students themselves, are flawed.”
Pretty much sums it up and far more eloquently than I could have said it. Looks like a training department issue. Much more to follow on this!!
Essay VS Multiple choice Exams
Back in the Navy we took essay exams, a lot of essay exams. Essay exams for qualification, inspections, re-qualification and so on. The current industry opinion (formed by the NRC) is that grading an essay question is too subjective and could lead to a student without an adequate knowledge level passing a license test, hence, multiple choice questions. There are entire regulations on how to write the question and distracters. The strange thing is that our instructors routinely advise us to get a real feel for the material and not worry about the test, but in reality the questions are so convoluted that the only real way to assess knowledge is to do practice questions as a test. The fact is that in order to get questions that actually test knowledge, they are complicated. The handy thing is that the generic fundamentals exams given this century and a sample exam bank are online at nrc.gov. So, here is a sample question, all you nukes see what you think….
TOPIC: 192006
KNOWLEDGE: K1.06 [3.2/3.4]
QID: P259
A nuclear reactor has been operating at 50% power for one week when power is quickly ramped (over 4 hours) to 100%. How will the core xenon-135 concentration respond?
A. Decrease initially, then build to a new equilibrium concentration in 8 to 10 hours
B. Increase steadily to a new equilibrium concentration in 20 to 30 hours
C. Decrease initially, then build to a new equilibrium concentration in 40 to 50 hours
D. Increase steadily to a new equilibrium concentration in 70 to 80 hours
Not that tough, if you’ve seen the material and the question at least 5 times.
Now, not having realized this, being a tad bit overconfident when it comes to classroom training and as a Naval Nuclear instructor, judgmental of the materials, instructors and content I failed to adequately prepare for the first quiz in Reactor Theory almost tanked it. Not that I couldn’t have passed a good old fashioned essay test like in the Navy, but multiple choice can be tricky. In addition we have some new concepts here that if one is not fully versed in can be even more tricky. So in an effort to not repeat that performance, I delved into the books and the exam bank and scored better on Friday. So today and tomorrow, we are studying and going over the exam banks. Not much more exciting but I will finish my rant on the course in general and get it posted today.
TOPIC: 192006
KNOWLEDGE: K1.06 [3.2/3.4]
QID: P259
A nuclear reactor has been operating at 50% power for one week when power is quickly ramped (over 4 hours) to 100%. How will the core xenon-135 concentration respond?
A. Decrease initially, then build to a new equilibrium concentration in 8 to 10 hours
B. Increase steadily to a new equilibrium concentration in 20 to 30 hours
C. Decrease initially, then build to a new equilibrium concentration in 40 to 50 hours
D. Increase steadily to a new equilibrium concentration in 70 to 80 hours
Not that tough, if you’ve seen the material and the question at least 5 times.
Now, not having realized this, being a tad bit overconfident when it comes to classroom training and as a Naval Nuclear instructor, judgmental of the materials, instructors and content I failed to adequately prepare for the first quiz in Reactor Theory almost tanked it. Not that I couldn’t have passed a good old fashioned essay test like in the Navy, but multiple choice can be tricky. In addition we have some new concepts here that if one is not fully versed in can be even more tricky. So in an effort to not repeat that performance, I delved into the books and the exam bank and scored better on Friday. So today and tomorrow, we are studying and going over the exam banks. Not much more exciting but I will finish my rant on the course in general and get it posted today.
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
taking a breather
We are currently making our way thru the theory portion of the class and have started with reactor theory. I’ll admit that I felt a little cocky entering this phase, as I was by definition the reactor theory guru on at least one boat. I can definitely tell why Rickover was so adamant about the enrichment of fuel and the nuclear properties of the other materials he selected in his reactor designs. As soon as you put a good amount of U238 in to the picture, the cores get large (infinite) and the transuranics become very complicated. Not that he couldn’t have trained us, but the actual nuclear responses are very, very slow and getting the margins that he did wouldn’t have been very difficult. If interested, you could look at Doppler broadening and chemical shimming for examples.
One of my former minions commented on my reaction to the attitudes of the instructors here, like the Navy instructors were cocky, well just imagine if they never had to leave after getting here and never had to work with the students that they taught (ie, you wouldn’t send a kid to the fleet that you wouldn’t want to have work for/with you). Navy instructors were very mindful of this and were reminded routinely by their supervisors. Several of us former Navy nukes were talking today and agreed that there was very little actual ownership of the final product. I am amazed that the instructors don’t realize that a student in the current license class could be their boss in ten years or so, while they are still trying to “make it to retirement.” Another astounding difference.
There are the similarities, the variance of atomic concentration and reactivity worth of Xenon over the core lifetimes is amazing similar. Now off to review some reactivity balances and look at the NRC Exam bank.
One of my former minions commented on my reaction to the attitudes of the instructors here, like the Navy instructors were cocky, well just imagine if they never had to leave after getting here and never had to work with the students that they taught (ie, you wouldn’t send a kid to the fleet that you wouldn’t want to have work for/with you). Navy instructors were very mindful of this and were reminded routinely by their supervisors. Several of us former Navy nukes were talking today and agreed that there was very little actual ownership of the final product. I am amazed that the instructors don’t realize that a student in the current license class could be their boss in ten years or so, while they are still trying to “make it to retirement.” Another astounding difference.
There are the similarities, the variance of atomic concentration and reactivity worth of Xenon over the core lifetimes is amazing similar. Now off to review some reactivity balances and look at the NRC Exam bank.
Monday, January 5, 2009
wrap up for the first week
We definitely learned some stuff this first week, actual book work withstanding.
First and foremost we had the fact that it is “your license to get!” reinforced at each turn by each manager and instructor. Basically, the attitude is that no matter how poor the materials, training aids, classroom conditions, schedules, schedule changes, or “presenters” if we really want it we must go and get it. Please note that the instructors consider themselves “presenters” so that the responsibility for all of the material falls squarely on the candidate, for better or for worse. Some small changes from the last several classes came when the operations managers for the unit came in and indicated that if we were having trouble, we should contact them and that they would ensure we got all the help that we needed. But, then the instructors indicated that it was still “your license to get!”
Second, we learned that much like in our non-licensed training that the instructors are so insulated from us as students that constructive criticism on issues likequiz scheduling is immediately taken as an affront. The general attitude on this subject is that “the instructors have been doing this for a long time and they know what they are doing, who are you to question them?”
Third we learned that the instructors and supervisors take initial “guesses” at who will and will not make it thru the process at this stage. They all seem to be surprised that they are all guessing that we will all most likely make it. They seemed to have taken great pleasure in this in previous classes and one of the operators that declined to take his license exams (quit the class) was told after the fact that all of the instructors had know from the beginning that he was going to fail.
First and foremost we had the fact that it is “your license to get!” reinforced at each turn by each manager and instructor. Basically, the attitude is that no matter how poor the materials, training aids, classroom conditions, schedules, schedule changes, or “presenters” if we really want it we must go and get it. Please note that the instructors consider themselves “presenters” so that the responsibility for all of the material falls squarely on the candidate, for better or for worse. Some small changes from the last several classes came when the operations managers for the unit came in and indicated that if we were having trouble, we should contact them and that they would ensure we got all the help that we needed. But, then the instructors indicated that it was still “your license to get!”
Second, we learned that much like in our non-licensed training that the instructors are so insulated from us as students that constructive criticism on issues likequiz scheduling is immediately taken as an affront. The general attitude on this subject is that “the instructors have been doing this for a long time and they know what they are doing, who are you to question them?”
Third we learned that the instructors and supervisors take initial “guesses” at who will and will not make it thru the process at this stage. They all seem to be surprised that they are all guessing that we will all most likely make it. They seemed to have taken great pleasure in this in previous classes and one of the operators that declined to take his license exams (quit the class) was told after the fact that all of the instructors had know from the beginning that he was going to fail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
