re: Agreement State - NRC relationship -Reply

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

Although I've not met Charlie, I perceive that he is an astute individual. 
 Those "politically unacceptable problems"  vary widely  from state to 
state, depending on who's in office and on whose cat's tail your rocking 
chair caught.  The entire thing, IMHO, is political, and it started from the 
top of the government.  As long as states keep insisting that "we can do a 
better job than the feds," we're likely to get an opportunity to prove it! 
 <GRIN>

If it ever comes to the point where the entire program is turned over to the 
states, you can probably forget what little uniformity among the states we 
now have.  NRC doesn't HAVE to be the driving force for this, however, but 
it does have a track record.....however tarnished it may have become.  It 
kind of brings back to mind the 1970s when the AEC got split into ERDA and 
NRC, mostly for political reasons, I suspect.

Bill Spell
bills@deq.state.la.us

The usual disclaimers always apply, even if not applied!  <G>
 ----------
From: radsafe
To: Multiple recipients of list
Subject: re: Agreement State - NRC relationship -Reply
Date: Monday, December 02, 1996 11:02AM

There may be justification for the "agreement states should pay" arguement,
but I do not
believe the game is worth the candle.  The NRC support to agreement states 
is
such a small
part of the budget that making the states pay would not help anyone else 
very
much.
Furthermore, any attempt to impose such charges would pose politically
unacceptable
problems.

Of course, there is also the "unfunded mandates" issue.  If the NRC is to
maintain a measure
of consistancy in the states, it must provide something in return.

Charlie Willis