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

RE: DOE/Price Anderson



Yes, it is true that I have not read the Price Anderson Act in its entirety.
If that exclusion does exist, then Bill Lipton's original note is fully
correct.  Add the addendum that the deck is also stacked in DOE against For
Profit companies.

Wes
HPLF@cfu.net


----- Original Message -----
From: "Alois N Singer/SINGAN/CC01/INEEL/US" <SINGAN@inel.gov>
To: "Multiple recipients of list" <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2001 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: RADSAFE digest 3621


>
> 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