Re: RADSAFE digest 3621

[William V Lipton <liptonw@dteenergy.com>]

I think that we have to approach this as a discussion of how the system should
operate, NOT who should be blamed.  Let's look at how things should be and how
we can get there.  Saying that this is inconsistent with current regulations is
irrelevant.

The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.

Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com


Alois N Singer/SINGAN/CC01/INEEL/US wrote:

> On January 29, 2001, Wesley M. Dunn wrote,
>
> >Excuse me, but UC is liable for fines as a DOE contractor under
> >Price-Anderson.  DOE decided not to fine them.
>
> Perhaps Mr. Dunn should understand the Price Anderson Amendments Act before
> commenting on DOE's actions.  Under these Federal regulations the DOE is
> specifically excluded from fining "not for profit entities" such as
> universities and Battelle Memorial Institute that are the contractors for
> most of the DOE National Laboratories.  Therefore his statement is
> incorrect, UC is not liable for fines under the Price Anderson Amendments
> Act but can only be cited for a finable infraction.  That is the law, don't
> blame DOE for what the politicians have done.
>
> ************************************************************************
> 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