re: Agreement State - NRC relationshipipnship

["Spell, Bill" <bills@deq.state.la.us>]

     I say that we do pay for it......it just doesn't show up in dollars 
exchanged......there are a lot of intangibles and mutual benefits which are 
difficult to assign a dollar value.  If, and when, the NRC starts charging 
the Agreement States, they will get a whole bunch of agreements back.  When 
that happens, a lot of folks, who are presently paying fees to Agreement 
States and getting the type of service they expect, will be in the same boat 
as you......and probably paying higher fees than now, since the NRC would 
have to add considerable staff.

I agree with Bill Pitchford's comments.  IMHO, the best solution would be 
for NRC to receive some revenue from what would correspond to our state's 
"general fund," which is the fed tax barrel.  In reality, all residents of 
the U.S. benefit from some activity of both state and federal radiation 
protection activities, and they aren't paying their fair-share if the 
program is totally fee-based, as is our radiation program.

Happy Thanksgiving.  I'm outta' here.

Bill Spell
bills@deq.state.la.us
 ----------
From: radsafe
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: re: Agreement State - NRC relationshipipnship
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 1996 9:45AM


 --???_???
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"



Just remember that most likely, the Agreement States will then have to pass
that cost along to their licensees...

Dwayne Gardner
State of Connecticut
dwayne.gardner@po.state.ct.us

.the opinions I express are my own and do not necessarily reflect the
position of my employer...
 ----------
From: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Subject:   re: Agreement State - NRC relationship
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 1996 10:10AM


Received: from postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu (postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu
[128.174.5.11]) by po.state.ct.us (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id KAA04219;
Wed,
27 Nov 1996 10:06:29 -0500
Received: from romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu [128.174.74.24])
by
postoffice.cso.uiuc.edu (8.6.12/8.6.12) with SMTP id IAA81760; Wed, 27 Nov
1996 08:59:34 -0600
Received: from localhost by romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu (NX5.67d/NeXT-2.0)
     id AA05937; Wed, 27 Nov 96 08:59:26 -0600
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 96 08:59:26 -0600
Message-Id: <0004700008001551000002*@MHS>
Errors-To: melissa@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Originator: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Sender: radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: MVala@USCCMAIL.uscc.bms.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <radsafe@romulus.ehs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: re: Agreement State - NRC relationship
X-Listserver-Version: 6.0 -- UNIX ListServer by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment:  Radiation Safety Distribution List

     Bill Pitchford wrote:

     As a former Agreement State Employee and seasoned veteran of State
     Government, I have genuine reasons to believe that the relationship
     between the NRC and Agreement States is a very important relationship
     to nurture and maintain.

     Without NRC provided training most Agreement State programs would dry
     up and blow away. (With a couple of notable exceptions.)

     Without NRC adequacy and compatability issues some programs might find
     it administratively impossible to conduct rule-makings and
     enforcement.

     Without NRC involvement some issues are beyond the technical
     capabilities of some Agreement State programs to efficiently and
     effectively handle. The technical assistance provided would be
     difficult to obtain from outside sources in a manner that would
     maintain objectivity.

     Without the NRC the exchange of regulatory and safety information
     could be impaired unless another entity (such as CRCPD) was utilized
     to facilitate this sharing of data and experience.

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

     I concur that the NRC provides valuable services to the Agreement
     State programs.  I think it's about time that the Agreement States pay
     for these services.  Since 1991, the NRC has been completely funded by
     NRC licensees through annual fees.  As a result all these services to
     Agreement States are subsidized by NRC licensees. According to the
     NRC, the fees are commensurate with the time required to maintain your
     licensed activities.  I see no reason why the NRC cannot charge the
     Agreement States for the service they provide the same way they do
     their licensees.

     Just my opinion,


     Happy Thanksgiving!

     Mike Vala
     Bristol-Myers Squibb
     mvala@usccmail.bms.com
..


 --???_???--