Re: NRRPT vs 10CFR835

[xat@inel.gov (Alden Tschaeche)]

Steven Rima wrote:
> 
>      A number of people have said that we do not need to address this topic
>      in 10 CFR 835 because it is in the radcon manual. We need to keep in
>      mind in this discussion that the radcon manual is now "guidance" and
>      that compliance with it is no longer mandatory. Leaving something out
>      of 835 because it is in the radcon manual is not something we should
>      be doing or considering.
> 
>      Steven D. Rima, CHP
>      steven.rima@doegjpo.com
> 
> 
> 
> ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
> Subject: Re: NRRPT vs 10CFR835
> Author:  mcnaught@lanl.gov (Mike McNaughton) at Internet
> Date:    1/29/97 8:40 AM
> 
> > -The DOE RadCon manual does in fact encourage the recognition of NRRPT
> >certification, but does
> [Editorial note: I think the word "not" was omitted here]
> >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.
> 
> A new (January 1997) draft is available for comment at
> http://apollo.osti.gov/html/techstds/tsdrafts/tsdrafts.html
> In this new draft 642.5 still "encourages" NRRPT, but 642.6 which said
> "Sites are encouraged to give credit ..." is omitted.
> 
> "Shlala gashle" (Zulu greeting, meaning "Stay safe")
> mike (mcnaught@LANL.GOV)
> 
> 
It is interesting to note that the Idaho Operations Office of the US
Department of Energy still imposes the DOE RadCon manual upon its
contractor, LMITCO by contract.  DOE-ID is not willing to give up the
manual as a mandatory requirement in spite of what DOE-HQ says.  Any
other DOE sites have the same problem?  Al Tschaeche xat@inel.gov