INTERNATIONAL ACCELERATOR RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION E-MAIL (IARPE) NEWSLETTER "The Official Publication of the Accelerator Section of the Health Physics Society" (with Contributions from International Correspondents) ====================================================================== July/August 1996 Circulation: 208 Vol.5, #4 ====================================================================== OFFICERS OF THE ACCELERATOR SECTION President: Lutz Moritz, TRIUMF President-Elect: Vashek Vylet, SLAC Past President: Bob May, TJNAF Secretary: Scott Walker, LANL Treasurer: Carter Ficklen, TJNAF Newsletter Editor: James C. Liu, SLAC Directors: Wes M. Dunn (1999) Steve Musolino (1999), BNL Jeff Leavey (1998), IBM Tracy Tipping (1998), KSU Don Cossairt (1997), FNAL Lorraine Day (1997), LSU ====================================================================== CONTENTS From the Editor From the President Feature Article: Occupational RPPs for US DOE- Regulated Accelerator Facilities Section News News from Correspondents: CERN, Daresbury Laboratory, FNAL TJNAF, W. M. Dunn How to Subscribe or Update Subscription Closing Thoughts ====================================================================== From the Editor James C. Liu ====================================================================== It is almost the fifth year of the IARPE Newsletter since its inception. Like other new officers in the Section, I am pleased to be the new editor and also thankful to those who voted me into this office in Seattle. A list of the Section's new officers is also shown in the Section News. This is the first issue after the 1996 HPS meeting in Seattle. Lutz Moritz, in his first address as the new Section President, highlighted the role of the Section and the responsibilities of the members in achieving a "reasonable" regulatory environment, particularly for accelerator facilities. Along the same topic on regulation, this issue also contains a feature article by Michael P. Grissom of SLAC on "Occupational Radiation Protection Programs at US Department of Energy Regulated Accelerator Facilities". This 4-page article gives an excellent summary of the regulatory history for US DOE facilities (including nuclear and accelerator), which starts from the early DOE Order 5480.1A, Order 5480.11, the Radiological Control Manual, 10CFR835, to the current "Necessary and Sufficient" Standards. Feature articles on "DOE environmental radiation protection program" and "State Radiation Safety Regulations for Particle Accelerators" have also been solicited and, hopefully, will appear in the coming issues. There are five news contributions which summarize the CERN RP activities, the upgrade of SRS and its new Diamond storage ring proposal, the Fermi RP work and support for a new accelerator for PET, the TJNAF physics experiment, and a proposed rule revision from CRCPD. Thanks to the previous editor, Vashek Vylet. we had our first issue on WWW in last May/June. Again, you can check the current WEB-version issue at http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~james/iarpe.html (note that the address has changed to ~james) As time permits, I will try to include fancy features, sophisticated typography, backgrounds and color schemes, etc., so that it can be an even more enjoyable pleasure in reading the Newsletter. I will conclude with a request for suggestions and contributions from all readers. Your views and comments on how to improve the Newsletter are always welcome. I would be grateful for those who might be willing to become regular correspondents. ====================================================================== From the President Lutz Moritz ====================================================================== Dear Colleagues: Those of you who attended the Seattle Health Physics Society meeting would have noticed that your new president was conspicuous by his absence! I could not really blame hard times for not being able to attend the Seattle meeting, only the force of circumstances. I am almost at the end of my sabbatical year at CERN and as my host has been most generous in allowing me to attend the IRPA meeting earlier this year and he is also having to bring me back to CERN in November, I did not feel it was fair to ask to go to the Seattle meeting as well. However I hope that my experience here in Europe will allow me to bring a new perspective to the Section Executive. I am also the first non-US president of this Section and so I will have to ask your forbearance if I am not always entirely current on the issues which concern you most. I think that the establishment of a Section of the Health Physics Society dedicated to Accelerators four years ago has turned out to be a worthwhile exercise. Thanks to my predecessors we have already made great headway in recruiting international membership as well as in having input into the regulatory processes in this country. And it looks like we will be able to pull off a very successful midyear symposium in San Jose, largely because of the dedication of Vashek Vylet and the team he has assembled. If to-day we are being pushed into regimes of over-regulation we should perhaps ask what we can do to better inform the regulators and the public who is pushing them. Too often I think we have had the attitude that we would just like them all to go away and leave us to do interesting things. Some among us like to call ourselves Health Physicists although for many the daily work does not have much to do with Physics. I think the times are past when we could pass off our responsibilities for educating the workers and the public. We have to be aggressive in providing clear and unambiguous information about our activities and the risks involved. This Section can play a role in that. I look forward to working together with the new executive and all the members of the Section and hope to see many of you in San Jose. ==================================================================== FEATURE ARTICLE Mike Grissom ==================================================================== Occupational Radiation Protection Programs at US Department of Energy Regulated Accelerator Facilities Michael P. Grissom, Special Assistant, ES&H, SLAC With the issuance of DOE Order 5480.11 (1) on December 21, 1988 (with an effective date of January 1, 1989), the management direction provided by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) with regards to occupational radiation protection (RP) programs changed from the general policies provided in DOE Order 5480.1A (2) to a more prescriptive regulatory environment. Even non-nuclear accelerator facilities were expected to provide an implementation plan during 1989 to provide demonstration of compliance with 5480.11. This change in direction was a direct consequence of events at the DOE government- owned contractor-operated (GOCO) Rocky Flats Plant near Denver, Colorado (a Defense Programs [DP] facility that processed weapons grade plutonium) that lead to a Federal Bureau of Investigation review of plant management practices soon after Admiral James Watkins had become the Secretary of Energy. The perception of a DOE complex "running amok" in its RP activities (based on additional DP facilities' review by various investigators from within and without DOE) led Secretary Watkins to commission the production of an even more prescriptive RP program that featured the DOE Radiological Control Manual (RCM)(3) as its cornerstone. A series of meetings involving RCM working groups (WGs) were held from late 1991 until sites had produced their own site-specific RCMs (including a completed implementation plan) on or about October 1992. The RCM was regarded as an umbrella document that tied together the various RP practices that were called for in a series of "Nuclear Safety" related DOE management directives but did not replace those directives (except for 5480.11). Thus from the beginning the new direction of RP policy for the DOE complex in the late 1980s derived from DP program activities (and the Environmental Management [EM] program which had been charged with cleaning-up former DP facilities) rather than from the Energy Research (ER) program community. Unfortunately, the prescriptive program developed was widely perceived by the ER community, which accounts for the bulk of large US research accelerator facilities, as being excessively prescriptive, requiring significant incremental funding, and being too inflexible in its application. SLAC completed its review of the DOE Radiological Control Program, reviewed DOE's comments on the site-specific implementation plan provided in October 1992, and approved the final site-specific RCM (4) in March of 1993. SLAC, as well as the other accelerator facilities in the DOE complex, wrote its site-specific RCM to comply with the DOE RCM. SLAC's Director provided the following concerns in the formal letter attached to the site's manual for delivery to DOE: "...The prescribed requirements for a contamination control program, radiation warning signs, documentation and training go beyond a performance-based radiological control program and leave little flexibility for adapting radiation protection policies to the specific needs and operations of this site. Because of these requirements, significant resources will be required for activities that do not add to the radiation protection of either SLAC's work force or the surrounding public." Concerns about use of a guidance document such as the RCM as a "mandatory standard" and the degree of enforcement available under a DOE management directives system led DOE to develop a series of regulations in Title 10 of the US Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These regulations derived from the Price Anderson Amendments Act of 1988 (5) which was designed to indemnify nuclear facilities (those subject to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended) in the event of significant emergencies (primarily events only possible, even if improbable, with nuclear reactor or weapons production operations). The nuclear safety directives were to be codified in Title 10 CFR Part 830 (6) which were to apply only to "Nuclear Facilities", the definition of which is still being developed (7), and in Title 10 CFR Part 835 (8) which was to apply to all DOE facilities, including all DOE accelerator facilities (most of which are classified as low-hazard "Radiological Facilities"). Although one feature of the RCM was positively received, that is, the idea of forming an Accelerator Users Group (at least one meeting of which was held at FNAL), the generally negative experience with RCM implementation issues led the ER community to hold a "Rule Implementation Plan" workshop at ANL-E on September 13-14, 1994 which was followed by additional meetings/workshops on specific rules' issues. This initial workshop was called, in part, in anticipation of the codification of occupational RP requirements in Title 10 CFR Part 835 (10CFR835). The 835 Working Group (835WG) ensured interaction of ER contractors with their counter-parts at different contractor facilities, DOE Program Offices, and DOE Field/Operations Offices. At the DOE Oakland (OAK) Operations Office, a "Radiological Quality Improvement Team" was established which was designed to ensure that 10CFR835 implementation followed a consistent path for the GOCOs in OAK (principally SLAC, LBNL, LLNL, ETEC, and LEHR). The final product of these efforts across the complex was each site's "Radiation Protection Program (RPP) Plan" (9). All such RPPs required every facility to either have achieved full compliance by January 1, 1996 or to have had exceptions to the requirements in 10CFR835 approved by DOE prior to January 1, 1996 (10-11). A series of twelve implementation guides, such as best management practices for external and internal dosimetry programs, were provided by DOE to assist in developing RPPs. In general, the requirements in 10CFR835 were similar (but not exactly the same as) those requirements established by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission in Title 10 CFR Part 20, which is oriented to RP for byproduct material licensees. While the RPPs were nearing completion, and as a consequence of the review of DOE management operations by various DOE external review committees (in particular the Galvin committee) since Hazel O'Leary had become Secretary of Energy in 1992, a new program was developed called "Necessary and Sufficient" (N&S). This process came about in part due to criticism by the GOCO community that the rules did allow for a sufficiently "graded approach" in implementation (adjustment of rigor based on level of hazard) and did not provide any "value added" (such as, improvement in worker safety). The N&S process (12-14) was designed for developing a set of environment, safety, and health (ES&H) standards for DOE GOCO contracts that specified ES&H requirements, including the Radiation Protection functional area. When ER established the rules and requirements WGs, the N&S concept had not yet been fully developed so that the N&S review required "retrofitting" to already planned activities for implementing 10CFR835. The DOE Department Standards Committee (DSC), one of several WGs formed after the Galvin committee drafts began circulating, was developed under the guidance of Tara O'Toole (Assistant Secretary of Energy for ES&H), early in 1994. By February/March 1995 the Fermi National Accelerator Lab (FNAL) pilot N&S project was underway (other sites, such as LBNL, also did N&S pilots for specific facilities, rather than a site-wide N&S pilot as was the case at FNAL). DOE describes the objectives of the N&S process as (15): "Contractor management identifies a sufficient set of standards for performance of work and submits it to the Department for acceptance. Applicable requirements contained in Federal, state, and local laws and regulations must be included in the set. Other requirements are included as the result of mutual agreement that takes into account the particular circumstances. The result of the approach is the agreed-upon necessary and sufficient set of standards. This necessary and sufficient approach permits good judgment to be exercised at the appropriate decision level, increases effectiveness of work, and reduces arbitrary imposition of requirements that add cost but no value." N&S also was associated with the external regulation of ES&H activities at DOE GOCOs as was advised by the Advisory Committee on External Regulation of DOE Nuclear Safety, whose final report was recently released and is accessible on the World Wide Web (WWW) at URL: . The concept of external regulation envisions moving at least some GOCO operations from under DOE regulation to other Federal or State agencies thus reducing the need for DOE to maintain redundant oversight operations. Further information regarding the DSC and N&S is available on the World Wide Web (WWW) at URL . An overview of the Los Alamos National Laboratory's (LANL, largely a DP GOCO) N&S Radiation Protection Pilot (approved May 20, 1996) was recently provided (16) indicating what the principal elements of an occupational radiation protection program might be (not all GOCOs completing the N&S process have exactly the same list): "1. Access Control, 2. ALARA, 3. Area Designations, 4. Contamination Control, 5. Radiological Design and Control, 6. Personnel Dosimetry, 7. Emergency Exposures, 8. Instrumentation, 9. Performance Assessment, 10. Personnel Protective Equipment, 11. Planned Special Exposures, 12. Posting, 13. Radiation Hazard Communication, 14. Occupational Dose Limits, 15. Records, 16. Source Control, 17. Storage and Labeling, 18. Training, 19. Workplace Monitoring, and 20. Work Planning." In a future article, I will describe DOE's development of the environmental radiation protection program (ERPP), currently a draft rule for the proposed Title 10 CFR Part 834. The implementation of all these varying (but not exactly alike) radiation protection programs has greatly stressed the administrative support capabilities of the accelerator laboratories, which, with a few exceptions, do not have the large program planning offices seen at the larger multi-program laboratories. References (1) DOE Order 5480.11, "Radiation Protection for Occupational Workers", 12-21-88 (Chg 1: 7-20-89). (2) DOE Order 5480.1A, "Environmental Protection, Safety, and Health Protection Program for DOE Operations", 8-13-81, Chapter XI ("Requirements for Radiation Protection"). (3) DOE/EH-0256T, DOE N 5480.6, "US Department of Energy Radiological Control Manual, June 1992 (Revision 1, April 1994). [Presently being considered as a DOE Standard.] (4) "Radiological Control Manual", SLAC-I-720-0A05Z-001, March 1993 (Revision 1, May 1995). (5) Title 10 CFR Part 820, "Procedural Rules for DOE Nuclear Activities", Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 157, pp. 43680-43706, 8-17-93. (6) Title 10 CFR Part 830, "Nuclear Safety Management", Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 65, pp. 15843-15853, 4-5-94. (7) "Hazard Categorization and Accident Analysis Techniques for Compliance with DOE Order 5480.23, Nuclear Safety Analysis Reports", DOE-STD-1027-92, December 1992. (8) Title 10 CFR Part 835, "Occupational Radiation Protection", Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 58, No. 238, pp. 65458- 65512, 12-14-93. (9) "Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Radiation Protection Program Implementation Plan for Implementing 10 CFR 835", SLAC-I-720-1A05M-002, April 1995. (10) "Preparation, Review, and Approval of Implementation Plans for Nuclear Safety Requirements", DOE-STD-1082-94, October 1994. (11) "Requesting and Granting Exemptions to Nuclear Safety Rules", DOE-STD-1083-95, February 1995 [NOTE: DOE approved standards are available on the WWW at: .] (12) DOE P 450.3, "Authorizing Use of The Necessary and Sufficient Process", 2-26-96. (13) DOE N 450.3, "Use of the Necessary and Sufficient Process", 1-25-96. (14) DOE M 450.3-1, "The Department of Energy Closure Process", 1-25-96 (15) "Criteria for the Department's Standards Program", DOE/EH-0416, USDOE, Office of ES&H, August 1994, p. 4. (16) "A Field Perspective for Implementing 10 CFR Part 835, Occupational Radiation Protection", Gene R. Runkle, Director, OS&H, DOE/AL, Health Physics Society's 41st Annual Meeting, Seattle, Washington, July 20-26, 1996. ====================================================================== SECTION NEWS ====================================================================== News from Secretary (Scott Walker, walker_lawrence_s@lanl.gov) The new officers elected in the HPS meeting in Seattle, WA to fill positions in the Accelerator Section of the Health Phyics Society are listed as follows: President-Elect: Vashek Vylet Secretary: Scott Walker Board of Directors (three year term): Steve Musolino Board of Directors (three year term): Wes M. Dunn Newsletter Editor: James C. Liu ====================================================================== NEWS FROM CORRESPONDENTS ====================================================================== News from CERN (Manfred HOEFERT, manfred.hoefert@cern.ch) After those hectic weeks Radiation Protection at CERN had lived through, following the CRII-RAD attacks in spring, a relative calm returned also thanks to the summer holidays although without pretzels and beer. As CERN had not been unimpressed by the allegations RP eventually profited from the events in four ways. 1. Since there had been intrusion into the radioactive storage area, it was surrounded by walls made from no-longer-use concrete blocks, 320 cm high, reminding us of Berlin before November 1989. All open air storage of radioactive material will be abandoned, although it is a tough job to find indoor storage space at CERN for the sometimes voluminous accelerator parts. The position of the contractor labor who had been working in the radioactive waste area was transformed into a CERN staff post with external recruitment still in 1996. 2. A procedure to reinforce the education of contract labor in radiation protection that in view of the Swiss Ordinance had already been started last summer but without great enthusiasm by the firms concerned was taken up again. Also CERNs new Radiation Safety Manual stipulates that firms employing personnel in controlled radiation areas must have a responsible knowledgeable person who assures a minimal education in radiation protection of the staff. This comes on top of RPs activities in this field. 3. The check of radioactivity at the CERN gates will be reinforced at three locations. For three exits the existing equipment will be upgraded and a particular radioactivity check procedure be introduced. Here again our argumentation is that we do not justify the critics but any existing measure and procedure can and should be improved as long as the efforts remain ALARA. 4. RPs existing and extensive environmental program will be upgraded in close collaboration with the Swiss and French authorities. This in view of reinforcing the proof that CERNs radiological impact on the environment is negligible. In spite of the tense personnel situation our management consented to recruit another physicist specialized in environmental measurements. Such a post was anyway needed with the substantial increase envisaged in environmental monitoring of the LHC. After the summer period the Radiological Impact Report for the LHC will be finalized. Most of the recent work was done by Lutz Moritz (in French!!) who will leave CERN for his home institute after one year of excellent work and help. Practically all radiological parameters and predictions in this report are based on FLUKA calculations performed by Graham Stevenson and his team. Following the introduction of CERNs Radiation Safety Manual edition 1996 in March the supplementary documents containing the more practical information for the daily work but partly dating from the mid 80s are presently under revision. A series of radiation measurements inside the LEP tunnel with the machine working at 80 GeV just came to an end. The results will hopefully prove that the predictions made on doses due to synchrotron radiation at higher energies are correct and a reliable extrapolation becomes possible up to the highest energy envisaged of 96 GeV per beam. Finally the July/August run of the CERN-EU Reference Radiation Facility turned out to be a great success with participants crowding in the area. This facility will continue to supply beam, possibly twice a year under the new management of Thomas Otto and Marco Silari. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- News from Daresbury Laboratory (Roy Ryder, R.Ryder@dl.ac.uk) STATUS OF SRS The SRS at Daresbury Laboratory, England was the first storage ring to be built as a dedicated synchrotron radiation source. It has now been operational for almost 15 years. Electrons are injected into the ring at 600 MeV and ramped up to 2 GeV. Beams of 300 mA are routinely stored with an initial lifetime of 25 hours which increases to 45 hours at the end of a day because of less desorption from the vacuum chamber walls at the lower current. Extra focussing magnets were installed after 5 years of operation to give a High Brightness Lattice. The SRS provides radiation at the low energy end of the x-ray spectrum. The characteristic energy of the radiation from the dipoles, 5T wiggler and 6T wiggler are 5, 12, and 16 keV, respectively. The beam is available to the users with a downtime of less than 5%. A total of 34 experimental stations are in use at the present. Finance has been recently approved to upgrade the experimental facilities of the SRS. A state of the art VUV line will be added on dipole 5 and permanent magnet Multi-Pole Wigglers will be installed in straights 6 and 14. This will bring the number of experimental stations up to 40. In order to squeeze in the extra magnets it will be necessary to reposition all 4 RF cavities. A shutdown of up to 8 weeks will be required to install the magnets and beamlines. More time will be needed to condition the accelerator ready to provide synchrotron radiation beams. Even with the above mentioned upgrade, it has been realised that the SRS needs to be replaced. A Conceptual Feasibility Report is close to completion which proposes medium enrgy storage ring called Diamond. There is widespread support amongst the science community and the Research Councils for this proposal. Diamond is planned to be a third generation 3 GeV, full energy injection electron storage ring. The storage ring will be optimised for insertion devices to provide high flux X-rays within an energy range 3 keV to 30 keV and high brightness X-rays within an energy range 100 eV to 3 keV. It will complement the facilities at the ESRF. The stored beam current is planned to be 300 mA with a lifetime greater than 20 h. The storage ring will be fed from an electron synchrotron booster and a microtron or linac injector. It is considered unnecessarily expensive to provide a positron injection system. In order to extend the range of x-ray energies, it is proposed that 2 or 4 normal dipoles can be replaced with superconducting dipoles. Another proposal under consideration is top up injection where after normal injection (with port shutters closed) electron losses are made up by injecting a small number of electrons at regular intervals. For maximum efficiency, the port shutters would have to be open to allow experiments to continue collecting data. It is anticipated that Diamond would be operational within 5 years after being granted financial approval. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- News from FNAL (Don Cossairt, don_cossairt@qmgate.fnal.gov) Fermilab has long conducted a program to "spike" our vendor-supplied radiation badges as part of our quality assurance program. During the summer of 1995 Mr. Andrew Kemp from Stockbridge High School in Atlanta Georgia was employed to carry out a project to measure the room-scattering contribution existent when neutron dose is delivered to the badges as part of this program. Andy was selected as part of Teachers Research Associates (TRAC) program, a long-standing program at Fermilab designed to involve secondary teachers of science in Fermilab activities and projects. Using a Bonner Sphere detector system, and an AmBe source, room scattering was measured at a variety of heights above a concrete floor and distances from the source. Results were analyzed using the BUNKI unfolding program during the summer of 1996 with Andy's return sojourn at Fermilab. It was concluded that for the specific geometry of our neutron scattering area the so-called "Jenkins formulae" are good to within 10% accuracy. Therefore, we have decided to use the Jenkins formulae to account for the room return contribution to the total neutron dose on the spiked badges. As a result of this work, Andy Kemp developed new interests to the point where he will be starting in his PhD program for Science Education this autumn at Georgia Tech. Thus the project will perhaps also result in the recruitment of one more "soul for science". Other important recent activities at Fermilab have involved the commencement of the long-awaited Fixed Target physics run. The group at Fermilab is busily preparing for measurements of airborne radioactivity, neutron spectra, beam intensity using foil activation, and muons as well as the more routine activities associated with the physics research program. For the first time in four years, the Mobile Environmental Radiation Laboratory has recently been employed to measure the muons emitted by a Fixed Target Experimental Areas beamline. We have also been providing services to experimenters including the provision for TLDs for experimental background measurements and special analysis of samples of various kinds for beam-induced radioactivity. A major recent effort, unrelated to the needs of the high energy physics program, is the need to provide radiation safety support for a project develop a radio frequency quadrupole (RFQ) accelerator system designed to produce 10 MeV He-3 beams of sufficient intensity to produce positron-emitting radionuclides for positron emission tomography. This project involves the development of the accelerators and initial production targetry studies at Fermilab. The project will eventually be turned over to the Biomedical Research Foundation of Shreveport, Louisiana. Medical physicists from the University of Washington (Seattle) and accelerator experts from Science Applications International Corporation are major participants in this project. Much work is going into the addressing of the special radiation safety requirements of this effort which involve the handling of some short-lived radioactive liquids and anticipated high, but likewise short-lived, residual exposure rates. To the author's knowledge, the operation of this accelerator represents the first acceleration of any particle more massive than the proton at Fermilab! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ News from TJNAF (Bob May, may@cebaf.gov) Jefferson Lab Operations Update After several weeks of scheduled downtime, the Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator (CEBA) at Jefferson Lab started operations in mid-July in support of a third experiment in Hall C. CEBA now routinely delivers five-pass, 4 GeV cw beams at user-requested currents exceeding 50 microamperes. For the first two experiments, conducted between November 1995 and May 1996, CEBA exceeded its reliability goals: beam was available for 70% of 2477 scheduled hours, with 19% for downtime and 11% for accelerator tuning. Also in July, another step in preparation for delivery of polarized beam to the experimental halls was taken when low-current beam from the polarized gun was recirculated through two passes and delivered to Hall C. Donal Day of the University of Virginia and Brad Fillipone of Caltech are spokespersons for the now underway third experiment, "Inclusive Scattering for Nuclei at x>1 and High Q^2" (E-89-008). Commissioning continues in Hall A, which received first beam in April as reported earlier. Preparations are on track for first beam to Hall B in late 1996. Bob May Radiation Control Group Head Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility ---------------------------------------------------------------------- News from W. M. Dunn The Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors (CRCPD) has distributed a draft revision to Part I [Radiation Safety Requirements for Particle Accelerators] of the Suggested State Regulations (SSR) for comment. One goal of this minor revision was to adapt the regulations for the emergence of self-shielded cyclotrons to create Positron Emission Tomography (PET) pharmaceuticals. It is expected that the current work of the ANSI 43.4 accelerator writing group will lead to a complete revision of Part I. Comments on the draft will be reviewed by the SR-3 committee of the CRPCD. If the comments do not lead to any major revisions, a final form of Part I will be recommended for inclusion into the SSRs. The SSRs are designed as model regulations for state radiation control programs. Many state programs use the SSRs as the basis for their regulatory framework. Wes Dunn, Chair, SR-3 Committee Deputy Director, Licensing, (Texas) Bureau of Radiation Control 512-834-6688 (phone) 512-834-6690 (fax) ====================================================================== HOW TO SUBSCRIBE / UPDATE YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS ====================================================================== To add yourself to the mailing list for the IARPE Newsletter, send an e-mail message to: listserv@slac.stanford.edu The body of your message should contain the following command: subscribe iarpe-l Please don't forget to update your e-mail address if you move, change jobs or just change your computing environment. The update consists in canceling the old by 'unsubscribe' and submitting a new subscription, as illustrated below: unsubscribe iarpe-l your_old_email_address subscribe iarpe-l end If the body of your message, as in this example, contains more than a single line/command, it is good practice to finish with the 'end' command, especially if your mailer adds a signature. If you experience problems with subscribing/updating, please send me an e-mail to james@slac.stanford.edu and I will do it for you. ====================================================================== CLOSING THOUGHTS "Let us not look back in regret, but reexamination, nor forward in fear, but hope nor around in complacency, but awareness" - A Chinese Idiom