Re[2]: NRRPT vs 10CFR835

[Peter.Darnell%EM@em.doe.gov]

Message authorized by:
    : xat@inel.gov_at_INTERNET at X400PO
     
     DOE - Fernald has kept "portions" of the DOE RadCon manual as 
     requirements.  The site contractor and DOE agreed on the "necessary 
     and sufficient" requirements to be kept from the manual.  This was 
     done under the "S/RID" (standard/requirement identification) process.  
     We made this decision to enhance the requirements promulgated by 10 
     CFR 835 and to ensure that a "requirement" existed for those portions 
     of the RadCon manual that we felt were important to keep for our site 
     remediation operations.
     
     Please reply to me directly for more information.
     
     Pete Darnell
     Health Physicist
     US DOE - Fernald
     513-648-3182
     peter.darnell%em@em.doe.gov


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re: NRRPT vs 10CFR835
Author:  radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu_at_INTERNET at X400PO
Date:    1/29/97 3:02 PM


Errors-To: melissa@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu 
Originator: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu 
Precedence: bulk
X-Listserver-Version: 6.0 -- UNIX ListServer by Anastasios Kotsikonas 
X-Comment:  Radiation Safety Distribution List
     
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