Re: Security Workshop

[Kent Lambert <lambert@allegheny.edu>]

The purpose of the workshop was NOT to provide "substantial advice or 
guidelines" to licensees regarding security and control of radioactive material. 
Rather the goal of the workshop was for the NRC to listen to the problems and 
recommendations of the regulated community.  

The NRC should be commended for their conduct at the workshop.  They did not 
defend their current position.  They did not try to direct the conversation. In 
short, they provided a forum for licensees to discuss the security issue, 
develop a consensus, and then present the conclusions to the NRC.

Although there were doubters in the break-out group in which I participated, I 
truly believe that the NRC was listening to the licensees.  Even if no 
regulatory changes (in guidance, enforcement policy, or rulemaking) come out of 
the workshop, at least the NRC heard our viewpoint and, I believe will seriously 
consider the recommendations.  The participants, of course, will be disappointed 
if no changes are made.

The workshop was a positive approach to solving differences between the 
regulator and regulated.  A special thanks goes to Joe Ring and Harvard 
University for their initiative and sponsorship of the workshop.

Sinisterra,Andres wrote:
> 
> Dear Radsafers:
> 
> A member of our staff attended the workshop conducted by the NRC in region
> I.  From what I gathered from him, the NRC provided no substantial advice or
> guidelines regarding the security issue.   IMO, they provided no information
> to modify their position that....... "there is no quantity of radioactive
> material which must not be secured".
> 
> Andrés Sinisterra
> Asst. R.S.O. for Medicine
> University of Connecticut Health Center

-- 
Kent Lambert, CHP
lambert@allegheny.edu

All opinions are well reasoned and insightful.
Needless to say, they are not [necessarily] the
opinions of my employer. - paraphrased from Michael Feldman