[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: DOE-NRC crosswalk

To: "'Kim D. Merritt'" <k.merritt@larc.nasa.gov>, radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu
Subject: RE: DOE-NRC crosswalk
From: "Somerville, Mark" <MOS3@PGE.COM>
Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 14:31:32 -0800
Reply-To: "Somerville, Mark" <MOS3@PGE.COM>
Sender: owner-radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Kim,

You are right about the arguments.  I've lost track of whom is fighting for

what.



On the other issue, look at 10CFR71.  It incorporate the 49CFR code by

reference and imposes additional requirements on packaging for greater than

type A quantities.  10CFR61 has the radwaste requirements.  Also,

manifesting is in 10CFR20.  It all goes back to the DOT though.  If you

violate the DOT regs, you violate part 71.



Mark O. Somerville

Certified Health Physicist

Registered Environmental Assessor

Diablo Canyon Power Plant

(805) 545-4007

mailto: mos3@pge.com





************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

Prev by Date: Re: Prefer a Technical Track for the Radsafe List
Next by Date: RE: Ship Yard Workers - John Boice
Prev by thread: DOE-NRC crosswalk
Next by thread: Vacancy Announcement
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread