[ RadSafe ] Trustworthiness and Reliability requirements, was: Open HP Po...

[Clayton J Bradt]

Barb, you've described the situation that the licensee faces perfectly:

"A licensee can grant anyone unescorted access, so long as the T&R
Official feels the employee is trustworthy and reliable, and
documents some (i.e., any) basis for that determination."

Whoever the licensee FEELS is trustworthy and reliable is OK.  The
responsibility for identifying who is a
potential security threat lies squarely upon the licensee.  But that's
where it was to begin with, and the NRC
provides no criteria for excluding anyone.  Calling this guidance sets the
bar pretty low, even for the NRC.
It's better characterized as a warning to the licensee: "You're in this on
your own, and if something bad happens
it's your fault, not ours!"

Of course licensees were never the intended audience for the T&R
requirements, but rather congress.


Clayton J. Bradt
Principal Radiophysicist
Laboratory for Inorganic & Nuclear Chemistry
NYS Dept. of Health
518-474-1993

BLHamrick at aol.com wrote on 07/18/2010 12:48:20 AM:

> BLHamrick at aol.com
> 07/18/2010 12:48 AM
>
> To
>
> brent.rogers at optusnet.com.au, CJB01 at health.state.ny.us,
> joseph_ring at harvard.edu, radsafe at agni.phys.iit.edu
>
> cc
>
> Subject
>
> Re: [ RadSafe ] Trustworthiness and Reliability requirements, was:
> Open HP Po...
>
> Actually, the guidance on trustworthiness and reliability that came
> out when fingerprinting was included lists items that can also be
> found in 10 CFR 10, which is the part that provides rules and
> regulations for NRC employees.  Nevertheless, it's still guidance.
> A licensee can grant anyone unescorted access, so long as the T&R
> Official feels the employee is trustworthy and reliable, and
> documents some (i.e., any) basis for that determination.
>
> Barbara L. Hamrick
>
> In a message dated 7/14/2010 1:14:43 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
> brent.rogers at optusnet.com.au writes:
> Could it be the case that some employers are applying 10 CRF 26 (Fitness
for
> duty) standards, even though they were only meant for nuclear reactors,
> critical mass users, etc?
>
> Brent Rogers
>
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential or sensitive information which is, or may be, legally privileged or otherwise protected by law from further disclosure. It is intended only for the addressee. If you received this in error or from someone who was not authorized to send it to you, please do not distribute, copy or use it or any attachments. Please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and delete this from your system. Thank you for your cooperation.