Help | Contact Us
NukeWorker.com
NukeWorker Menu So is it a Marssim or Marsame survey?

Author Topic: So is it a Marssim or Marsame survey?  (Read 15738 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline danthatguy

So is it a Marssim or Marsame survey?
« on: May 15, 2012, 10:28 »
Reading through different sites around it has made me doubt myself. I haven't performed one in 2 years. So which is it? Is it a Marssim survey or a Marsame survey?
« Last Edit: May 15, 2012, 10:29 by danthatguy@yahoo.com »

Offline GLW

Re: So is it a Marssim or Marsame survey?
« Reply #1 on: May 15, 2012, 10:46 »
Either or, they're 2 different things,...

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

Offline Rennhack

Re: So is it a Marssim or Marsame survey?
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2012, 12:15 »
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/marssim/
The Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM) provides guidance to federal agencies, states, site owners, contractors, and other private entities on how to demonstrate that their site is in compliance with a radiation dose or risk-based regulation, otherwise known as a release criterion.

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/marssim/marsame.html
Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Assessment of Materials and Equipment manual (MARSAME) is a supplement to the Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM). Like MARSSIM, MARSAME is a joint effort by the Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Energy (DOE), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Basically, MARSSIM is for SITE surveys, MARSAME is for Materials and Equipment surveys.


You didn't even ask about the Multi-Agency Radiological Laboratory Analytical Protocols Manual (MARLAP).
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/marlap/links.html

« Last Edit: May 16, 2012, 12:20 by Rennhack »

Offline danthatguy

Re: So is it a Marssim or Marsame survey?
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2012, 01:09 »
Okay, that clears things up a bit. So all the labs that I surveyed would have fallen under Marssim. They both sound the same coming from a Tennesseean. As for Marlap, I don't think I have come across those at any point. Good info. Thanks. I'm green, what can I say?

Offline OldHP

  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 502
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 276
  • Gender: Male
  • Tell Recruiters to use NukeWorker.com
Re: So is it a Marssim or Marsame survey?
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2012, 01:12 »
It would be so much easier to go back to 5849!
Humor is a wonderful way to prevent hardening of the attitudes! unknown
The government is like a baby's alimentary canal, with a happy appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other. Regan

Offline Wojo

Re: So is it a Marssim or Marsame survey?
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2012, 02:03 »
It would be so much easier to go back to 5849!

BLASPHEMER!!!!!!!!

: And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou shalt establish the Holy Type I Error. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt use for relative shift, and the number of the relative shift shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of MARSSIM towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall be statistically proven to be devoid of contamination at a level not in excess of 25 mrem/year plus the holy ALARA.     [dowave]
Lost my boots in transit, pile of smokin leather, nailed the retreads to my feet and prayed for better weather - J Garcia

Offline GLW

Re: So is it a Marssim or Marsame survey?
« Reply #6 on: May 16, 2012, 02:39 »
BLASPHEMER!!!!!!!!

: And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou shalt establish the Holy Type I Error. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt use for relative shift, and the number of the relative shift shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of MARSSIM towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall be statistically proven to be devoid of contamination at a level not in excess of 25 mrem/year plus the holy ALARA.     [dowave]

yeah, yeah, yeah,...

it's a whole lot easier to tell production manager X and operations manager Y and services manager Z to clean it up to 5K on average with up to 15K here and there,...

as opposed to,...

well over here go to 23K, over there go to 11K and here and there go to 69K depending on my area factor,...

and then you get the look,..... [coffee]

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

Offline Wojo

Re: So is it a Marssim or Marsame survey?
« Reply #7 on: May 16, 2012, 03:38 »
and then you get the look,.....

The path of MARSSIM is beset on all sides by the inequities of the unknowing and the tyranny of construction managers.  Blessed is he who, in the name of compliance and good statistical power, shepherds the project manager through the valley of the sign test, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the creator of jobs for rad engineers.  And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who attempt to poison and destroy my systematic sample populations.  And you will know that it is my FSS Package when I lay my DCGLemc upon you.
Lost my boots in transit, pile of smokin leather, nailed the retreads to my feet and prayed for better weather - J Garcia

Offline SloGlo

  • meter reader
  • Very Heavy User
  • *****
  • Posts: 5756
  • Total likes: 186
  • Karma: 2641
  • Gender: Male
  • trust me, i'm an hp
Re: So is it a Marssim or Marsame survey?
« Reply #8 on: May 16, 2012, 04:21 »

You didn't even ask about MARLAP
Yew are rite, I four got awl about her.  How's she dune?  [whistle]
« Last Edit: May 16, 2012, 04:21 by SloGlo »
quando omni flunkus moritati

dubble eye, dubble yew, dubble aye!

dew the best ya kin, wit watt ya have, ware yinze are!

Offline Rennhack

Re: So is it a Marssim or Marsame survey?
« Reply #9 on: May 16, 2012, 04:26 »
it's a whole lot easier to tell them to clean it up to 5K on average with up to 15K here and there,...

You can still tell them that.  ;)  In fact, its easier to not even mention the 15k, that confuses them even more.  Just tell them 1k smearable, 5k fixed.  And to make note of any spots above that, and I'll make it go away justify it in the paperwork.

Regardless of what is easier.. MARSSIM is here to stay.  And those of us that understand it will enjoy a paycheck.
« Last Edit: May 16, 2012, 04:27 by Rennhack »

Offline tntplayer

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 72
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 65
  • Gender: Male
  • I love NukeWorker.com!
Re: So is it a Marssim or Marsame survey?
« Reply #10 on: May 16, 2012, 06:59 »
BLASPHEMER!!!!!!!!

: And the Lord spake, saying, "First shalt thou shalt establish the Holy Type I Error. Then shalt thou count to three, no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt use for relative shift, and the number of the relative shift shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of MARSSIM towards thy foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall be statistically proven to be devoid of contamination at a level not in excess of 25 mrem/year plus the holy ALARA.     [dowave]

This is the funniest thing that I can remember reading on this site...long live Monty Python... ;D

Offline stirfry

  • Moderate User
  • ***
  • Posts: 73
  • Total likes: 0
  • Karma: 22
  • Gender: Male
  • It's an O.K. World
Re: So is it a Marssim or Marsame survey?
« Reply #11 on: May 16, 2012, 11:43 »
It would be so much easier to go back to 5849!


I agree with OldHP.  5849 was much easier to follow and guide workers with. KISS =  Keep It Simple Stupid.
YA gotta be SOMEWHERE

Offline Duke

Re: So is it a Marssim or Marsame survey?
« Reply #12 on: May 17, 2012, 07:25 »
Yes, 5849 was easier to follow and understand- I also agree with OldHP!

Offline Wojo

Re: So is it a Marssim or Marsame survey?
« Reply #13 on: May 18, 2012, 09:19 »
I can’t wait to see everybody’s heads explode when the NRC finally sh**cans Reg Guide 1.86 and switches over to a risk-based release criteria for materials based upon an all pathway TEDE of 1 mrem/yr to an average member of the critical group.  It’s coming people, quicker that some would think.

 [Dalek] [Dalek] [Dalek]
« Last Edit: May 18, 2012, 12:08 by Nuclear NASCAR »
Lost my boots in transit, pile of smokin leather, nailed the retreads to my feet and prayed for better weather - J Garcia

atomicarcheologist

  • Guest
Re: So is it a Marssim or Marsame survey?
« Reply #14 on: May 18, 2012, 09:50 »
I can’t wait to see everybody’s heads explode when the NRC finally shitcans Reg Guide 1.86 and switches over to a risk-based release criteria for materials based upon an all pathway TEDE of 1 mrem/yr to an average member of the critical group.  It’s coming people, quicker that some would think.

 [Dalek] [Dalek] [Dalek]
They could go with a risk-based release criteria for occupational group, residence group, and farmer John group.  Simple numbers for simple use. 

Offline Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 13521
  • Total likes: 542
  • Karma: 5133
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
Re: So is it a Marssim or Marsame survey?
« Reply #15 on: May 18, 2012, 10:38 »
I can’t wait to see everybody’s heads explode when the NRC finally shitcans Reg Guide 1.86 and switches over to a risk-based release criteria for materials based upon an all pathway TEDE of 1 mrem/yr to an average member of the critical group.  It’s coming people, quicker that some would think.

 [Dalek] [Dalek] [Dalek]

How would that work for transportation releasing railcars etc., I think 1.86 is safe in non facility release criteria.

 [2cents] just my opinion I have no other basis for it.

Offline Wojo

Re: So is it a Marssim or Marsame survey?
« Reply #16 on: May 18, 2012, 11:31 »
How would that work for transportation releasing railcars etc., I think 1.86 is safe in non facility release criteria.

Technically, you would use the MARSAME guidance to derive a material specific release criteria based upon the material disposition, post use scenarios, who makes up the AMCG, etc.  Realistically, what is probably going to happen is that licensees will model a bunch of conservative release criterion based on their frequent waste streams and apply them via a SOP.  So let's speculate that your rail cars are carrying excavated soils and the disposition is disposal, you would model that, derive a conservative pathway scenario, come up with a volumetric criteria for the soils and a surface criteria for the cars and then apply them across the board.  You would then come up with a SOP for surveys that would demonstrate compliance using the statistical survey designs presented in MARSAME.
Lost my boots in transit, pile of smokin leather, nailed the retreads to my feet and prayed for better weather - J Garcia

Offline Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 13521
  • Total likes: 542
  • Karma: 5133
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
Re: So is it a Marssim or Marsame survey?
« Reply #17 on: May 18, 2012, 01:13 »
Technically, you would use the MARSAME guidance to derive a material specific release criteria based upon the material disposition, post use scenarios, who makes up the AMCG, etc.  Realistically, what is probably going to happen is that licensees will model a bunch of conservative release criterion based on their frequent waste streams and apply them via a SOP.  So let's speculate that your rail cars are carrying excavated soils and the disposition is disposal, you would model that, derive a conservative pathway scenario, come up with a volumetric criteria for the soils and a surface criteria for the cars and then apply them across the board.  You would then come up with a SOP for surveys that would demonstrate compliance using the statistical survey designs presented in MARSAME.

   You may be right but that responsibility can be carried by a very small business with limited resources. Known isotopes and a frisker would be much cheaper. I have found myself on a hard money contract where the project manager did not realize we where responsible for the clearance of leased cars introducing the cost of HP manpower. Not much of an issue for $500K plus contracts but it starts to make a dent in lower end hard money contracts.

I know!!! Where is the job security for all of our MARSSIM experts???  [devious]

Offline Wojo

Re: So is it a Marssim or Marsame survey?
« Reply #18 on: May 18, 2012, 01:36 »
  I know!!! Where is the job security for all of our MARSSIM experts???

Cha-Ching Baby   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Lost my boots in transit, pile of smokin leather, nailed the retreads to my feet and prayed for better weather - J Garcia

Offline GLW

Re: So is it a Marssim or Marsame survey?
« Reply #19 on: May 18, 2012, 05:00 »
How would that work for transportation releasing railcars etc., I think 1.86 is safe in non facility release criteria.

 [2cents] just my opinion I have no other basis for it.

1.86 (circa 1974) soldiers on in the face of ANSI 13.12 (circa 1999) and the 1 mrem/yr dose standard because audible clicks mean so much more to the discerning public than a SOP for surveys that demonstrate compliance using the statistical survey designs presented in a MARSAME dose based TBD's,...

especially when 12,000 clicks of isotope A is ok, but 3,000 clicks of isotope B are not,....

commercially;

those working under general licenses or otherwise will go with 49CFR and agreement state regs to send 'em,...

specific licensees will have larger staffs to implement all that fun stuff previously described,...

it'll open a lot of jobs that nobody is going to believe are needed,...

especially when statistically released stuff starts setting off the monitors at smelters, salvage yards and waste recyclers, et al and the pat answer comes back along the lines of being regulatory compliant and approved procedures,...

Yucca Mountain was regulatory compliant with approved procedures,...

the cops can pick up the dose from your stress test as you drive along in your car these days,...

folks already have it in their heads that medical dose is good dose and power plant dose is bad dose,...

statistically based free release and lead balloons,... yeah, I'm seeing the analogy,....
« Last Edit: May 18, 2012, 05:50 by GLW »

been there, dun that,... the doormat to hell does not read "welcome", the doormat to hell reads "it's just business"

Offline Marlin

  • Forum Staff
  • *
  • Posts: 13521
  • Total likes: 542
  • Karma: 5133
  • Gender: Male
  • Stop Global Whining!!!
Re: So is it a Marssim or Marsame survey?
« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2012, 06:08 »
1.86 (circa 1974) soldiers on in the face of ANSI 13.12 (circa 1999) and the 1 mrem/yr dose standard because audible clicks mean so much more to the discerning public than a SOP for surveys that demonstrate compliance using the statistical survey designs presented in a MARSAME dose based TBD's,...

especially when 12,000 clicks of isotope A is ok, but 3,000 clicks of isotope B are not,....

commercially;

those working under general licenses or otherwise will go with 49CFR and agreement state regs to send 'em,...

specific licensees will have larger staffs to implement all that fun stuff previously described,..
it'll open a lot of jobs that nobody is going to believe are needed,...

especially when statistically released stuff starts setting off the monitors at smelters, salvage yards and waste recyclers, et al and the pat answer comes back along the lines of being regulatory compliant and approved procedures,...

Yucca Mountain was regulatory compliant with approved procedures,...

the cops can pick up the dose from your stress test as you drive along in your car these days,...

folks already have it in their heads that medical dose is good dose and power plant dose is bad dose,...

statistically based free release and lead balloons,... yeah, I'm seeing the analogy,....

No analogy intended, just a comment that 1.86 will still be useful under some circumstances.

Coexist   [GH]

 


NukeWorker ™ is a registered trademark of NukeWorker.com ™, LLC © 1996-2021 All rights reserved.
All material on this Web Site, including text, photographs, graphics, code and/or software, are protected by international copyright/trademark laws and treaties. Unauthorized use is not permitted. You may not modify, copy, reproduce, republish, upload, post, transmit or distribute, in any manner, the material on this web site or any portion of it. Doing so will result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law.
Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | Code of Conduct | Spam Policy | Advertising Info | Contact Us | Forum Rules | Password Problem?