[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NRRPT vs 10CFR835
- To: RADSAFE <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu> (IPM Return requested)
- Subject: Re: NRRPT vs 10CFR835
- From: "Merritt, Kim D" <kdmerri@SANDIA.GOV>
- Date: 28 Jan 1997 17:02:49 -0700
- Alternate-Recipient: Allowed
- Conversion: Allowed
- Disclose-Recipients: Prohibited
- Original-Encoded-Information-Types: IA5-Text
- Priority: normal
- X400-Content-Type: P2-1988 ( 22 )
- X400-Mts-Identifier: [/c=US/admd= /prmd=USDOE/; 0619D32EE93A90CE-mtaSNL]
- X400-Originator: kdmerri@sandia.gov
- X400-Received: by mta mtaSNL in /c=US/admd= /prmd=USDOE/; Relayed; 28 Jan 1997 17:02:49 -0700
- X400-Received: by /c=US/admd= /prmd=USDOE/; Relayed; 28 Jan 1997 17:02:49 -0700
- X400-Recipients: non-disclosure;
-The DOE RadCon manual does in fact encourage the recognition of NRRPT
certification, but does imply that it qualifies an RCT to work at any site.
It is used instead to eliminate the Core academic training requirement of
the RCT program. There is also a caveat that mentions "equivalent"
training, which one could interpret the include training received at a power
reactor for instance. The DOE RCT Program Management Manual also reiterates
this. Putting this into use is up each individual site.
Opinions expressed do not represent my employer, the DOE...
Kim Merritt, RRPT
kdmerri@sandia.gov
"Have no fear for atomic energy..."-Bob Marley
Radiation Protection Technologists is encouraged."