Thanks Eric

“No detectable” is a subject I am struggling with.  Here at LANL we are doing 
away with determining “Minimum Detectable Activity” and substituting something 
else which depends greatly on interpretation.  I would be more comfortable with 
“No detectable” if a confidence level were attached to the survey reading.

I do plan on staying in this field as long as I can be productive, perhaps 
another 10 or 15 years.

Tom

From: emgoldin [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 1:31 PM
To: Voss, Tom <[email protected]>; David W Miller <[email protected]>; 
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [powernet] RE: RE:New HPS Instrumentation Section Meeting Date

Tom, the NRC has no regulations with release criteria. Unconditional release 
requires a determination of "no detectable". I believe some materials licensees 
have license conditions with specified minimum detection limits such as the old 
1k smearable, 5k total.  For Part 50 licensees  (commercial reactors), see Info 
Circular 81-07 for surface contamination guidance and Info Notice 85-92 for 
quantities. Volumetric releases require gamma spec to environmental levels with 
LLDs specified in the ODCM.

If ANSI/HPS N13.12 were ever adopted . . . .

Regards, Eric Goldin, CHP




Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: "Voss, Tom" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: 4/17/17 10:54 AM (GMT-08:00)
To: David W Miller <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>, 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [powernet] RE: RE:New HPS Instrumentation Section Meeting Date

Everyone

I got the dates mixed up, David is correct it should be on the 10th.  But I 
still can’t find that meeting on the HPS Online Listing.  I have contacted the 
right people to get the meeting listed.

Show up at the HPS meeting on July 10th and I guarantee there will be a 
discussion about the new “Instrumentation Section” of the HPS.  Perhaps in a 
hallway which is where I get my best information here at Los Alamos National 
Laboratory.

Thanks to David for catching my error.

Tom

From: David W Miller [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 11:41 AM
To: Voss, Tom <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>; 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE:New HPS Instrumentation Section Meeting Date

Tom,

I think you mean Monday, July 10 for the new HPS Instrumentation Section 
meeting at the Raleigh HPS Annual Meeting.  I hope there is a good response to 
the instrumentation Section initiative.

Thanks for organizing the Power Reactor Section Meeting on Wednesday.

David Miller
Cook RP
American Electric Power
217 855 3238
________________________________
From: Voss, Tom [[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 17, 2017 1:35 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [powernet] NRC surface contamination release limits
This is an EXTERNAL email. STOP. THINK before you CLICK links or OPEN 
attachments.

________________________________
Everyone

In the DOE we use surface contamination guidelines in 10CFR835 Appendix D, much 
earlier than 10CFR835 we used Table 1 of DOE Order 5400.5.  Our Radiation 
Protection Program document pretty much incorporates the values in 10CFR835 
Appendix D.  Each DOE facility is required to have a Radiation Protection 
Program document but there are differences from one DOE facility to another.

Is there a comparable NRC document stating surface contamination guidelines ?

What is the impact of “HRA Consultation No. 26-MF-755-00D” ?  Is that a useable 
NRC facility guide ?

What do the Canadian members of Powernet use for surface contamination 
guidelines ?

The Power Reactor Section of the HPS will meet on Wednesday July 12 from 08:30 
to 10:30 AM at the annual HPS meeting in Raleigh.  I would like to discuss this 
topic and many more at that meeting.

I am also trying to arrange a short Monday night (July 11) meeting of those who 
are interesting in participating in the new “Instrumentation Section” of the 
HPS.

Best regards

Tom
James (Tom) Voss

Reply via email to