Re: Clinton budget extends nuclear user fees in 2001

[Kerembaev@cs.com]

Sandy and others,

I would like to add something to Sandy's point.

All this........a spirit of the grandiosity, reminds me a proudness at 
Chernobyl a year before the accident, for those who does not know, the 
Nuclear Power Plant received the first place in the industry for the 
efficiency, production and of course safety.
I am NOT trying to draw the EXACT parallels.
But............. We already had those "five years plans" 
Are Americans also want to try the taste of the absolutely controllable 
economy? ;-)
May be it is just a general attraction to feel control above everything. I 
heard a story about a man trying to control his cat.

I would like to bring two on topic and one off topic points.
1.
It just does not work that way. 
Just because we say that the machine is absolutely safe and the best in every 
other properties, the machine will NOT get safer nor better.

I apologize for the part #2, I promise, it will be the last time that I put 
something political in the message.
2.
(People may start buying more of those machines and somebody may buy another 
island and it is okay, if someone needs two islands.
People usually did not, still do not and I do not think, will ever appreciate 
that kind of citation for too long.) "Keeping up with Johns instinct" ;-)
But I do not want to talk much about the politics there are always different 
and very opposite opinions. So it is not so important for me, not ANY MORE.

3.
I am worrying about the SAFETY.
Opposite may happen with the safety!
A feeling or a spirit (call it how you would like to) of complacency will 
snick into the peoples minds and they will be damned to repeat mistakes of 
the past.

Emil.
kerembaev@cs.com

An other day, an other night.
Here is another question.
Why did Rome fall?
Was it a lead poisoning or the love for the shows?


In a message dated 2/7/00 6:41:08 Pacific Standard Time, 
sandyfl@earthlink.net writes:

<< Note: From the article below:
 
 > In the Clinton budget, the nuclear agency set forth goals for 2001 
 > to have zero radiation-related deaths and illnesses in connection 
 > with the operation of the 103 civilian reactors, a goal it met in 
 > 1999.  
 
 OK ... how does one validate that this goal was met in 1999, or for 
 that matter, any year? If asked the question, as they should be, 
 what plausible answer can they give? Establishing zero defects (or 
 in this case deaths or illness) as a goal is pretty ludicrous. Nice, 
 but in most cases, unattainable (if proven even)!
 
 Monday February 7, 3:07 pm Eastern Time
 
 Clinton budget extends nuclear user fees in 2001
 
 WASHINGTON, Feb 7 (Reuters) - The Clinton administration fiscal 
 year 2001 budget released Monday seeks to extend the collection 
 of user fees from applicants and licensee nuclear plant owners to 
 pay for Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) operations.  
 
 The budget proposal, which sets spending plans from Oct. 1 of this 
 year, said extension of the current user fees would pay for around 
 98 percent of the NRC's proposed $492 million annual budget in 
 2001.  
 
 By fiscal 2005, fees would pay for 90 percent of NRC expenses. 
 The current agency budget for fiscal 2000 is $469 million. The NRC 
 regulates the nation's civilian nuclear reactors  and medical and 
 industrial use of nuclear materials and the disposal of nuclear 
 waste.  
 
 In the Clinton budget, the nuclear agency set forth goals for 2001 to 
 have zero radiation-related deaths and illnesses in connection with 
 the operation of the 103 civilian reactors, a goal it met in 1999.  
 
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
 Sandy Perle                    Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100             
      >>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html