Re: FYI: "Our Gang"...

[Jim Muckerheide <jmuckerheide@delphi.com>]

Sandy,

What you say is right, but not complete. 

When NRC addresses a formal policy and wants comments they must issue
documents publicly and get all comments. In this case the "it IS about trust,"
and credible government! :-)  Just because (if) AIF or NUMARC had 'secret'
access to NRC on substance (obviously there's a lot of appropriate interaction
on doesn't make it right, just lucky. Government must "do it in the open," but
act on the evidence. After all, this is how we destroyed Millstone/NU. NRC and
licensee together know and take the 'shortcut,' and instead of documenting the
basis, they attack the messenger and defend the indefensible. Then get pushed
into political 'damage control' by the anti's (including Markey). 

If Jackson were still there, this is could be another such case where NRC
might go against the industry just for the political damage control (although
the NRC waste of a $billion on NU led to enough direct Congressional attack on
Jackson/NRC that it might have constrained her this time :-)

Regards, Jim
muckerheide@mediaone.net
========================

Sandy Perle wrote:
> 
> The only problem I observe is that they mislead Markey. Why is it
> that there is a perceived problem when the regulator obtains input
> from the regulated? There is no "money" exchanged as part of a
> political campaign, which is something the good senator is well aware
> of. No, there isn't any implied commitment on the part of the good
> senator when campaign finds are taken from lobbyists, right?
> 
> It makes excellent sense for the various industry groups to provide
> feedback. The regulator has the right ti include what they want, and
> reject what they don't want. The airlines provide input to the FAA,
> as well as many other regulated industries. "Regulation in the dark"
> has been a root cause of many problems in the past.
> 
> I was a member when AIF (or was it NUMARC) .. who knows, they've
> changed so many times, met with Walt Cool (Sr.) and Robert Baker when
> 10CFR20 was in the early days of revision, approximately 1993. These
> meetings provided the regulator and regulated to address issues.
> These meetings were very productive. The 10 CFR 20 implemented in
> January 1994 was a better document for it. Did we all in the nuclear
> industry agree with all of the inclusion.. no, we didn't, but we had
> our chance to address what we perceived to be problematic, and need
> further attention.
> 
> I think the NRC should be commended, instead of castigated for this
> recent communication with NEI. We are a government of the people,
> and, we all, including NEI, should have access to our government
> agencies. Mr. Markey, a well-known staunch anti-nuclear activist
> would be better if he attacked real issues that face all of us, and
> leave this particular issue alone.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Sandy Perle                                     Tel:(714) 545-0100 / (800) 548-5100
> Director, Technical                             Extension 2306
> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Division                Fax:(714) 668-3149
> ICN Biomedicals, Inc.                           E-Mail: sandyfl@earthlink.net
> ICN Plaza, 3300 Hyland Avenue           E-Mail: sperle@icnpharm.com
> Costa Mesa, CA 92626
> 
> Personal Website:  http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/1205
> ICN Worldwide Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com
> 
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html