[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: RAM security -Reply
But my only question regarding this is : Do NRC rulemakers are confident
that such NIH or MIT incidents will not happen again with the security
policy ?In the affirmative, I guess that anyone would be ready to invest the
extra time, effort and money !
How goods are regs against isolated, "terrorist" acts ?
Stephane JF
Specialiste en radioprotection/Radiation Safety Specialist ,RSO
Gestion des Risques/Risk Management
Merck Frosst Canada
) stephane_jeanfrancois@merck.com
% (514) 428.8695
FAX: (514) 428.4917
My opinion only...
> ----------
> From: Charles Willis[SMTP:CAW@nrc.gov]
> Sent: Monday, June 01, 1998 3:19 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: RAM security -Reply
>
> Les and other interested parties,
>
> Les asked whether there is anything to be done about the security problem.
> I
> believe there are several promising approaches. Unfortunately, there
> seems to b
> e
> no approach that does not require effort. A petition for rulemaking is
> one way
> to
> ensure that the issues are addressed and to obtain a hearing for your
> position.
> This
> can be difficult because the petitioner needs to recommend what should be
> required and why; this is more difficult than simply bemoaning what has
> been do
> ne.
>
> An alternative is to establish a dialogue with the NRC Commissioners,
> perhaps
> through a group such as the Health Physics Society (the National is more
> likely
> to
> be effective on this than the local chapter) and/or through
> Commissioner's
> assistants such as Joel Lubenau.
>
> If the problems are not in the rules themselves, but are in the related
> practic
> es,
> the development of a consensus standard might serve a useful purpose.
>
> If the problem is as serious as it seems ("worse public health impact than
> Chernobyl"), action should be taken. Diane's presentation is a step in
> the righ
> t
> direction but more needs to be done.
>
> Charlie Willis
> caw@nrc.gov
>
>
>