[ RadSafe ] Re: NRC and SI Units

[John R Johnson]

Franz and other RadSafe'rs

Do you know that the US gallon is different than the "imperial" one? The 
difference (from http://www.unc.edu/~rowlett/units/dictG.html) is

gallon (gal) [1]
a traditional unit of liquid volume, derived from the Roman galeta, which 
originally meant a pailful. Gallons of various sizes have been used in 
Europe ever since Roman times. In the United States, the liquid gallon is 
legally defined as exactly 231 cubic inches; this is equal to the old 
English wine gallon, which originated in medieval times but was not 
standardized until 1707, during the reign of Queen Anne. Some scholars 
believe the wine gallon was originally designed to hold 8 troy pounds of 
wine. The U. S. gallon holds 4 liquid quarts or exactly 3.785 411 784 
liters; a U.S. gallon of water weighs about 8.33 pounds. American colonists 
were also familiar with the Elizabethan beer and ale gallon, which held 282 
cubic inches (4.621 liters).

John
***************
John R Johnson, PhD
CEO, IDIAS, Inc.
Vancouver, B. C.
Canada
(604) 222-9840
idias at interchange.ubc.ca


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Franz Schönhofer" <franz.schoenhofer at chello.at>
To: "'Jeff Terry'" <terryj at iit.edu>; "'radsafe Radsafe'" <radsafe at radlab.nl>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 11:25 AM
Subject: AW: [ RadSafe ] Re: NRC and SI Units


Jeff,

Thanks again, for ridiculing the obviously raging war among hardliners.....

I noticed almost 2o years ago the discrepancy of liters and gallons in the
USA - gasoline by the gallon, spirits by 1,14(?)gallons.


Franz Schoenhofer, PhD
MinRat i.R.
Habicherg. 31/7
A-1160 Wien/Vienna
AUSTRIA


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] Im Auftrag
von Jeff Terry
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 04. Juli 2007 19:47
An: radsafe Radsafe
Betreff: [ RadSafe ] Re: NRC and SI Units

Hi Sandy,

Thanks for passing this on and just to make sure that I read this
correctly, as I have
never been very fluent in lawyer, could you comment on my summary below:




I believe that this documents states that we have converted to the
metric system
by not converting to the metric system. Although, it is ok to stick
the SI units next to
the official units.




Pretty amazing, if I have read this correctly.

I would love to know why I drink a liter of pop (soda for those of
you living in warped
parts of the U. S.) instead of a quart, but still buy a gallon of
gasoline.

Jeff


On Jul 4, 2007, at 11:34 AM, Sandy Perle wrote:

> These may be of interest:
>
> SECY-96-098
>
> May 7, 1996
>
> FOR: The Commissioners
> FROM: James M. Taylor, Executive Director for Operations /s/
> SUBJECT:  FINAL POLICY STATEMENT - CONVERSION TO THE METRIC SYSTEM
>
> PURPOSE:
> To seek Commission approval to publish in the Federal Register a final
> statement of policy on conversion to the metric system.
>
> BACKGROUND:
> On September 27, 1995 (60 FR 49928), the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory
> Commission
> (NRC) published a request for public comment on its existing
> metrication
> policy. This action was taken in accordance with the NRC's policy
> statement
> of October 7, 1992 (57 FR 46202), in which the Commission was to
> assess the
> state of metric use by the licensed nuclear industry in the United
> States
> after 3 years to determine whether the policy should be modified. The
> purpose of the attached Federal Register notice is to inform the
> public of
> the Commission's decision that its Statement of Policy on
> Conversion to the
> Metric System does not need to be modified, that it considers this
> policy
> final, and that its conversion to the metric system is complete.
>
> DISCUSSION:
> On August 23, 1988, Congress passed the Omnibus Trade and
> Competitiveness
> Act (the Act), (19 USC 2901 et seq.), which amended the Metric
> Conversion
> Act of 1975, (15 USC 205a et seq.). Section 5164 of the Act (15 USC
> 205a)
> designates the metric system as the preferred system of weights and
> measures
> for United States trade and commerce. The Act also requires that
> all Federal
> agencies convert to the metric system of measurement in their
> procurements,
> grants, and other business-related activities by the end of fiscal
> year (FY)
> 1992, "except to the extent that such use is impractical or is
> likely to
> cause significant inefficiencies or loss of markets to United
> States firms,
> such as when foreign competitors are producing competing products in
> non-metric units." (Section 5164(b)(2)).
>
> Executive Order (EO) 12770, "Metric Usage in Federal Government
> Programs"
> was signed by the President on July 25, 1991. Its purpose is "to
> implement
> the Congressional designation of the metric system of measurement
> as the
> preferred system of weights and measures for the United States
> trade and
> commerce." Further, the EO directs all executive branch departments
> and
> agencies "to take all appropriate measures within their authority
> to carry
> out the provisions of this order."
>
> In response to these actions, the NRC published a metrication policy
> statement for comment in the Federal Register (57 FR 4891) on
> February 10,
> 1992. The Commission considered several alternatives at that time.
>
> One alternative considered for compliance with the Act was an abrupt
> conversion of NRC activities to metric units. However, this action
> appeared
> to be neither necessary nor prudent for several reasons. First,
> licensed
> nuclear power plants are operated by regulated monopolies or public
> entities
> that are not involved in the export business. They, like the bulk
> of NRC
> materials licensees, do not participate in world markets.
> Therefore, the
> prospect of competitive advantage of employing the metric system of
> measurement is not directly relevant to these licensees. Second,
> the NRC has
> not received any petition for rulemaking from any licensee or
> applicant
> requesting NRC to amend its regulations to conduct licensing and
> regulatory
> matters in the metric system. Third, an abrupt and universal
> conversion to
> metric could possibly deleteriously affect the public health and
> safety
> because the introduction of an unfamiliar measurement system could
> lead to
> confusion and mistakes. This is particularly true in the case of an
> emergency when quick decisive action will be needed in a high-stress
> situation. Existing emergency plans are written in English units. The
> individuals who would need to act in an emergency, be they licensee
> personnel or agents of a local Government, are generally conversant
> only in
> English units. Fourth, requiring licensees whose market uses the
> English
> system to deal with the NRC only in metric units would pose an
> economic
> burden on those licensees with no safety or other benefit.
>
> A practical approach to using the metric system is one that is both
> consistent with the intent and direction of the Act and does not
> introduce
> the safety concerns noted above or result in an economic burden to
> licensees
> or applicants. This type of approach would result in the use of the
> metric
> system by those licensees and license applicants for whom the use
> of the
> metric system presents no economic disadvantage and no safety
> detriment to
> the public.
>
> The policy statement consistent with this position was then
> published on
> October 7, 1992 (57 FR 46202), which also called for the NRC to
> assess the
> state of metric use by the licensed nuclear industry in the United
> States
> after 3 years to determine whether the policy should be modified. As a
> result, the staff contacted members of various industrial and
> standards
> groups to determine their view of the NRC policy. On September 27,
> 1995 (60
> FR 49928), the NRC published a request for public comment on its
> existing
> policy to learn if any modifications to the policy were needed. The
> comments
> received from the industrial and standards groups were included in the
> request. As a result, the NRC received four comments, all from the
> nuclear
> power generating industry and all in favor of the NRC's policy.
>
> The staff believes that no changes to the Commission's metrication
> policy
> are needed, and that the proposed statement of final policy should be
> published in the Federal Register. This would complete the NRC's
> obligation
> in converting to the metric system of measurement.
>
> COORDINATION:
> The Office of the General Counsel has no legal objection to this
> paper. The
> Office of Congressional Affairs concurs with the contents of this
> paper.
>
> RECOMMENDATION:
> That the Commission:
>
> Approve the Final Statement of Policy for publication (Attachment 1).
>
> Note:
>
> A public announcement will be issued (Attachment 2); and
>
> The appropriate Congressional committees will be notified
> (Attachment 3).
>
>  James M. Taylor
> Executive Director for Operations
>
> -AND-
>
> § 20.2101 General provisions.
> (a) Each licensee shall use the units: curie, rad, rem, including
> multiples
> and subdivisions, and shall clearly indicate the units of all
> quantities on
> records required by this part.
>
> (b) In the records required by this part, the licensee may record
> quantities
> in SI units in parentheses following each of the units specified in
> paragraph (a) of this section. However, all quantities must be
> recorded as
> stated in paragraph (a) of this section.
>
> (c) Not withstanding the requirements of paragraph (a) of this
> section, when
> recording information on shipment manifests, as required in §
> 20.2006(b),
> information must be recorded in the International System of Units
> (SI) or in
> SI and units as specified in paragraph (a) of this section.
>
> (d) The licensee shall make a clear distinction among the
> quantities entered
> on the records required by this part (e.g., total effective dose
> equivalent,
> shallow-dose equivalent, lens dose equivalent, deep-dose equivalent,
> committed effective dose equivalent).
>
> [56 FR 23404, May 21, 1991, as amended at 60 FR 15663, Mar. 27,
> 1995; 63 FR
> 39483, July 23, 1998]
>
> § 20.2102 Records of radiation protection programs.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Sander C. Perle
> President
> Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc.
> 2652 McGaw Avenue
> Irvine, CA 92614
>
> Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714 ext 2306
> Fax:(949) 296-1144
>
_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/


_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the 
RadSafe rules. These can be found at: 
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: 
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/