Re: NRRPT vs 10CFR835

[Eva Lauber <laubere@wv.doe.gov>]

>Date: 29-Jan-97 15:03:01 -0500
>From: RADSAFE@smtp (radsafe){radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu}
>To: RADSAFE (Multiple recipients oflist){radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu}
>Reply-to: RADSAFE@smtp{radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu}
>Subject: Re: NRRPT vs 10CFR835
>Message-id: A1D8EF3201CC2B79
>O-SMTP-Envelope-From: <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
>
>  From: 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


AL, it all depends on your sites contract with DOE and if you have submitted a 
RPP.  If the RadCon manual requirements were "worked" into your contract you 
are liable.