Re: NRRPT vs 10CFR835

[Doug Turner <turners@earthlink.net>]

I passed the NRRPT in 1976 and the test was challenging.  I am currently
unemployed and would NOT like to see NRRPT used as a barrier to entry for
employment applicants as CHP frequently is.  IMO that passing an examination
only indicates the ability to learn and take tests - but does not reflect
experience, judgement, ethical standards, energy, creativity, courage, and a
host of other qualities that an excellent employee brings to the job.  NRRPT
and CHP certainly might be the deciding factor if all else is equal but
should not be a prerequisite for consideration.  Frequently prospective
employers are not knowledgeable in health physics and believe passing such a
test is proof of competence.  Let's face it 99% of the people who passed
these tests could not pass today without hundreds of hours of preparation. 

Doug Turner <turners@earthlink.net>

At 06:22 PM 1/28/97 -0600, you wrote:
>
> -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."
>
>