Re: Senate Bill 1043

[Carol, Marcus]

At 12:18 PM 7/11/03 -0700, John Jacobus wrote:

>If you review the bill, the issue is really about

>security of radioactive material and facilities.  That

>is why it is called "The Nuclear Infrastructure

>Security Act of 2003." .  My understanding is that the

>NRC is aware of this legislation, but does not want to

>take on any more responsibilities.





Dear Radsafers:



The Commissioners of NRC decided to go for ARM for reasons that have 

nothing to do with national security.  The reasons are power, control, and 

increased User Fees, I expect.  The Agreement States asked them not to but 

they ignored the Agreement States and went ahead anyway.  They certainly 

aren't out to fix any problems; there aren't any of which I am aware.  But 

they will certainly make plenty, I'll bet, judging by their performance 

with byproduct material.



As the security requirements of this bill are impossible to achieve, or at 

least utterly impractical, the passage of this bill would mean that NRC 

would be forced, by law, to go around shutting down its licensees and 

losing all those User Fees as a result.  This is a little much, even for 

the NRC.  This bill is bad law.  It should be defeated.



The Atomic Energy Act, as written at present, gives the NRC the right to 

make appropriate (or inappropriate) security requirements.  Just look at 

what NRC does in terms of locking lab doors or refrigerators just because 

there is a microcurie of C-14- or H-3-whatever inside.  Can you imagine how 

NRC will behave with this new law?



Ciao, Carol



Carol S. Marcus, Ph.D., M.D.

<csmarcus@ucla.edu>



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

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/