8. Competences: are we sufficiently demanding?

In my opinion, the answer to the major challenge of quantity also lies in quality. Our method of recruiting, training and organising attractive career development must meet the short and medium-term workload demands. It will also ensure our licence to operate in the future. We need to seriously think about the specificities of the nuclear sector: its technical aspects, standards and nuclear safety culture. I call on everyone to not compromise and to question good and bad habits.

The University of Nuclear Professions (UMN) created in 2021 is an example. By bringing together the key nuclear industry stakeholders, the UMN gives visibility to the training on offer, facilitates the matching of supply and demand, puts national and local stakeholders in touch with each other, and promotes the nuclear professions and the attractiveness of the sector. Real initiatives are already in place: the website ‘Mon avenir dans le nucléaire’, regional campuses (with the Normandy campus being the reference), and scholarships. In addition to the quality of the content, I call on those responsible for the project to challenge the standards of the accredited courses. The ‘nuclear’ label must be synonymous with excellence.

I also note the firm intention to recruit across all levels of qualification, targeting entry-level operatives at the Nuclear Generation Division (DPN) and engineering technicians at the Engineering & New-Build Projects Directorate (DIPNN). This strategy encourages enriching career paths based on operational experience and hands-on experience with different levels of responsibility.

I also find it beneficial for the Group to recruit staff from other industry sectors so their experience can be maximised without weakening the wider nuclear sector. This is why excessively complex working methods must be avoided if we intend to maintain the sector’s appeal.

The perspectives for the British sites are more diverse: long-term operation of the Sizewell B PWR, operation of the Torness and Heysham 2 AGRs up to 2028, operation of the Hartlepool and Heysham 1 AGRs up to 2026, defuelling of the other AGRs between three and five years before handover to Nuclear Restoration Services (ex-Magnox), and development of corporate and project engineering teams for the Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C projects.

The START 2025 programme makes competence management one of the key drivers of performance. It is based on principles that make sense; three in particular are worth highlighting.

‘Making managers responsible for the level of competence in their teams’ is essential. I have seen too often management absent from practice training sessions, which would otherwise allow them to assess the level of their team’s individual and collective competence. The operations skills training support representatives tasked with unburdening the department heads and shift managers of administrative jobs have now assumed this role at training sessions, including during the simulator test sessions. Yet manager presence is compulsory because it engages their responsibility when the qualification is approved.

‘Restoring rituals’ within teams, is another pillar of the competence project. Among these rituals, some are the responsibility of the manager, for example training committees. I believe that the pre-shift cycle preparation day should be devoted to training and practice. Other rituals are part of a collective action: preparing mock technical tests, spontaneous teaching sessions, studying documentation on main systems and mechanical schematics, and unrestricted use of the simulator. New technologies (e-learning, digital simulators, etc.) can be invaluable tools for modernising these rituals and adapting them for the new generations. I commend the decision to provide all operations departments with ‘Saturne’ digital simulators.

‘Professionalising staff by putting them back in touch with the plant’ is an ambition that I hold close to my heart. Bringing back some maintenance activities in-house is a positive step in renewing understanding of the plant. Teams gain a sense of pride and a new phase of ownership. I encourage the continuation of this approach, and reiterate my call for consistency in the choices made from one site to another, and for this strategy to be maintained over time.

The right drivers are in place, but the mindset needs to adapt. In addition to being the manager’s responsibility, competence development should be every employee’s or team’s concern. Staff committed to their professional development and a team committed to their competence cannot be imposed. Emulation will come from the values of the team: an individual failure at an interview or a poor performance at an assessment should be experienced as a collective failure. I therefore encourage all the French and British teams, each with their strengths and weaknesses, to regain ownership of competences. As for the managers, they must set the required standard and leave the necessary room for manoeuvre.

The growth in the engineering workforce has complicated the usual on-boarding rituals and the development of skills through informal mentoring. For this reason, new on-boarding paths, combining awareness and training of core knowledge areas (SCIN) have been deployed. On-site placements are sometimes carried out, and training courses specific to some disciplines have commenced.

Nevertheless, heavy workloads, inability to host placements, and budgetary constraints prevent these approaches from achieving the level of strength expected. It is essential to ensure that, from the very first day, every young engineer learns the fundamentals of their profession, how reactors operate, and the nuclear safety culture. This is why the initial training programme needs to be more systematic, including an obligatory site placement. The ‘Integrall’ initiative implemented in 2023 by the Technical Division at Framatome is a fine example of this.

The issue has been raised as to whether a nuclear safety authorisation should be imposed on those working in engineering and operations to guarantee they have learned the basics. The Central Technical Support Department (UTO) has done this and Edvance has begun the process. The organisation’s nuclear safety & quality certification (ISO 19443) is an additional bonus.

The first pioneers in the nuclear industry had no other choice than to learn: the systems were all new, the nuclear safety culture had to be invented, and technical skills were acquired by being close to the plant through start-up tests and troubleshooting. The passport for joining senior management was inevitably being successful in passing challenging technical interviews, the manager being above all a technical expert.

Since then, our industry has undergone a great deal of change. While changes to assure the operator practices were necessary, have we let our guard down on the expected skill base (see Chapter 2) ?

The increase in the number of positions and the pressure on succession tables, particularly in operations, have created a system where we have been tempted to cast a wider net in order to create vocations. The ratio between the number of applicants to the number of positions used to be about five to one, but it has reversed the past few years, sometimes being one to two. The gradual replacement of managers chosen for their technical expertise by managers chosen for their leadership skills has also led, both in France and the UK, to a system where knowledge of the rules overrides technical knowledge of the field. However, a good manager needs to have sufficient technical knowledge, not necessarily expert knowledge, and real leadership. When you don’t know something, you can and must learn it; the essence of who you are, however, is more difficult to change, but you can strive to self-improve.

I therefore encourage managers from maintenance, operations and the UFPI to question themselves. By setting the bar at the right level, training can aspire to higher standards without excluding people and inciting greater motivation that breeds mutual trust.

Competence management in the entities is largely shared with the UFPI. After having visited the sites, engineering centres and the UFPI, I am certain that the relationship between the UFPI and any entity cannot be limited to the notion of sub-contracting: it deserves to be rethought in terms of commitment to a level of skills.

The customer-supplier relationship is based on a contract. Process conformity and good dashboard indicators are sufficient. The partnership relationship aims for the best, reinforces virtuous behaviour and creates the conditions of trust so that we can also say when things are not going well. It is no longer a question of respecting contractual obligations, but learning and improving together.