RE: re: Agreement State - NRC relationship

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

Your grammar was somewhat garbled, but I believe you said that (in your 
opinion) the states could pay for it.  I disagree.  Some states could, some 
could not.  We (states) are not all uniform in what and how we do things.

I do agree with Jim Muckerheide that we do need to look to the future, and 
federal cost-sharing (or whatever one wants to call it) will continue to 
dwindle.  The states would be in a better position to have the CRCPD assume 
a more active role if all states were Agreement States and were WILLING and 
ABLE to support the CRCPD financially.  I think we are on the way to doing 
this, but it will take a while before we'll see concrete results.  As a 
matter of fact, a new dues category has been established for states which is 
based on number of people in the program the state desires to have as 
members.  It will not be sufficient, but it is a start if states utilize it. 
 We will.

Bill Spell
bills@deq.state.la.us

 ----------
From: radsafe
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: RE: re: Agreement State - NRC relationship
Date: Wednesday, November 27, 1996 2:37PM

Mike, you said

>     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.  ... I see no reason why the NRC cannot charge the
>     Agreement States for the service they provide the same way they do
>     their licensees.

My guess is that the states, due to the usual budgetary and justification
restains, could afford to pay.


John Jacobus
john_jacobus@nih.gov

My own opinion and proud of it!