[ RadSafe ] Too much GOVERNMENT regulation

Wed Mar 23 06:57:12 CDT 2011

Having been in the Nuclear Power business since the early days ( 1970s) I can tell you from first hand experience that allowing the utilties and manufacturers a free hand would be disasterous. That is not to say they most in the industry do not mean well; the drive for profits is simply too strong an incentive and allows all sorts of self rationalizing when making decisions on safety. It is somewhat akin to what happened when the banks were deregulated with the result of a major economic collapse in our country. The risks were known (read "Too Big to Fail" its quite illuminating) by JP Morgan, Lehman Brothers etc but they were so afraid of being left out of the wind falls being created by the derivatives and sub-prime loan markets they simply wished it away.

I would agree that too much regulation is incredibly suffocating and not good for safety or the economy. The trick is to find the right balance - its real hard and we all have opinions on whether the poridge is too cold or too hot. One thing I do support is the periodic review of regulations so those that did not accomplish their intended purpose or are found to be overly burdensome are eliminated and tweaks are made in the useful regulations to ensure their effectiveness. One big problem with OSHA and EPA is that once a regulation is approved its almost impossible to change it or eliminate it. Kind of runs against the grain of a "Continuous Improvement Process."

I personally don't like posting my political opinions on this board (and I should be castigated for it-don't worry I will punish myself by watching Twighlight) but in this case I felt in necessary to weigh in based on personal experience within the nuclear power community,

Pete C

Peter Collopy, CIH, CHP, CSP 
Director, Entropy Control 
Chaos for the Future 
129 Second Street
Troy, NY 12180
518.326.6413

--- On Tue, 3/22/11, Maury Siskel <maurysis at peoplepc.com> wrote:

From: Maury Siskel <maurysis at peoplepc.com>
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Too much GOVERNMENT regulation
To: "The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List" <radsafe at health.phys.iit.edu>
Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2011, 10:31 PM

Government as we experience it today, is  mere unthinking Regulation 
with an unfortunate absence of any semblance of  '-self-'
Best,
Maury&Dog       [maurysis at peoplepc.com]

========================
William Lipton wrote:

>"Self-regulation" is an oxymoron.
>
>Bill Lipton
>doctorbill at post.harvard.edu
>
>
>On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 7:58 PM, Howard <howard.long at comcast.net> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Nuclear "Business" is better regulated by customers than by self-serving
>>bureaucrats, Dewey, -
>>
>>- as is physician care. 94% of Medicaid cost in KS is for other than
>>doctors, their overhead, labs and imaging. The bureaucracy is 98% of
>>"health" cost for Medicaid  in New Jersey!
>>
>>Read Rockwell. Review the finance costs for nuclear plants.
>>Would you invest in regulatory harassment for 15 years (while interest cost
>>mounted)?
>>Palo Verde puts out electricity 1/4 the cost gas or coal generators do.
>>Why does it have just 3 instead of the planned 10 reactors? State of Fear
>>(Crichton)
>>
>>Read Freedomnomics (Lott) if you believe government regulation keeps
>>nuclear reactors safer than Westinghouse or GE would, or that economics is
>>not choked by cancerous government growth.
>>
>>Howard Long
>>
>>On Mar 22, 2011, at 5:55 AM, "Thompson, Dewey L" <DThompson3 at ameren.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>All right, I'll bite.  I think you got it wrong Howie.
>>>
>>>The impediment to new nuclear power is NOT regulation.  It's economics.
>>>
>>>The cost to build a new Nuc means that in most cases you are "betting the
>>>      
>>>
>>company" simply to buy it, never mind the risk exposure to the company if
>>the operators break it.  We could likely have a discussion that TMI didn't
>>really affect the public, and therefore was a vindication of the safe
>>design.  Anyone want to argue that TMI wasn't a really-really bad business
>>outcome?
>>    
>>
>>>I think most of us right now would agree that the effect upon the public
>>>      
>>>
>>from the Fukushima accident is unacceptable.  Anyone want to argue the fact
>>that this won't be a really-really bad business outcome?
>>    
>>
>>>The energy policy act of 2005 said basically "You build a new nuke, we
>>>      
>>>
>>will give you a billion dollars".  And the economic issues STILL made a
>>couple of the mid sized utilities blink when it came down to "put up or shut
>>up" time.   They shut up and did not pursue a construction/operation
>>license.  There will be some of the big boys get their billion by building a
>>new unit, but most utilities simply can't afford it.
>>    
>>
>>>My point?  Most members on a board of directors are loathe to bet the
>>>      
>>>
>>company on a single asset.
>>    
>>
>>>As to the over regulatory part, the NRC is chartered to protect the
>>>      
>>>
>>public.  I don't have a problem with that.  Frankly, compared to the
>>business risk issues, the regulations are not that onerous.  (Of course
>>there are specific regulations that are probably not really needed, but
>>those are mostly minor in nature.  And of course some individual regulators
>>can display freakazoid logic at times, but again, it isn't a widespread
>>problem.
>>    
>>
>>>Nuclear plants NEED to be designed, built, and operated at a higher
>>>      
>>>
>>standard than is seen in much of industry.  The public demands it, of
>>course, and the regulators primary charter is NOT the business interest.
>> And if you protect the business interests, the public won't have a worry.
>>    
>>
>>>FWIW
>>>Dewey
>>>T 314.225.1061
>>>F 573.676.4484
>>>E DThompson3 at ameren.com
>>>
>>><SNIP>
>>>so excessive regulation impedes nuclear energy
>>>(see Rockwell, Creating the New world).
>>>
>>>Why not discuss on Radsafe how much regulation is good (or bad)
>>>just like how much radiation itself is good (or bad)?
>>>
>>>Howard Long
>>>
>>>      
>>>

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the RadSafe rules. These can be found at: http://health.phys.iit.edu/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit: http://health.phys.iit.edu