Re: Senate Bill 1043

[John, Jacobus]

Dr. Marcus,

My conversations with folks at the NRC are certainly

not in line with your statments.  The issue of the NRC

regulating accelerator facilities have come up before,

and lead nowhere.  I suggest you frame the issue in

light of policians who are riding the wave of fear for

reelection "brownie points" with the public.  The NRC

did not ask for this initial authority.  Also, they

cannot lobby against it.  However, you can certainly

write to your representatives about it.



The NRC is a reactive group.  While the requirement to

secure radioactive material, e.g., C-14 and H-3, was

always in the regulations, they were really enforced

until the contamination incidents that occurred at NIH

and MIT in 1995.  



I certainly agree with the statement that there are

any big problems the NRC needs to fix. The problem is

public preception of radiation risks, and neither the

NRC, nor state agencies can seem to change that

preception.









--- Carol Marcus <csmarcus@ucla.edu> wrote:

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

> . . .

> 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?

> . . .



=====

-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

http://sbc.yahoo.com

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

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/