RE: DOE Cites Argonne LabSubcontractor for Nuclear Safety Violati

["Grimm, Lawrence" <LGrimm@ADMIN.UCLA.EDU>]

Sandy: I'm keeping this one private, because there are some things I do not
want to say on Radsafe with regards to the idea I presented.

I have few illusions regarding the idea or its implementation: it is
simplistic and there are some drawbacks to it based on one's philosophies of
life.  

You have pointed up some drawbacks that I believe are based on a hardcore
management philosophy.  A lot of people believe in that kind of hard core
management, therefore my idea would never fly with them.  I doubt seriously
that the regulators would ever consider the idea (although I tried a litle
armchair psychology to urge them to consider it).  Why? Because if they are
issuing Notices of Praise, they cannot be issuing fines now can they?  Oops,
there goes some revenue.

However, I did get the idea to work for me in the university settingand it
worked well. I sort of used it when I was a regulator (I didn't have a
formal process as a regulator, it was all verbal).  As HP's, we are always
begging the question of how to achieve compliance, when the real question
should be "Are we achieving safety?"  (Please do not take this thought to
the LNT debate - I'm burnt out on that right now).

If a worker is willing to talk to me, I am more than willing to work with
them to achieve the safety goals that I have set.  The use of praise, and I
am not implying that it be tied to monetary compensation, is a a basic
humanistic tool to which people respond well.  I feel that I achieved a much
safer environment by using the tool and it really opened up dialogue which
gavve me great opportunities to educate.  In all respects, what I am
suggesting is nothing more than a standard management tool to motivate
people towards your goals.  Sometimes it doesn't work and the fear factor is
a better tool to use. I believe the good HP should liberally apply the
praise and use the fear factor sparingly - an adaptation of one of my basic
philosophies of life.  There are plenty of others who believe the opposite
as in "spare the rod, spoil the child".   

Frankly, you sometimes have to wonder what the NRC's goals are based on the
way they behave.  I easily see this discussion being elevated to a
discussion and evaluation of their goals and the means of implementing those
goals. It'll be interesting to see if any Radsafers pick up on this.

The other aspect that I hope to see Radsafers pick-up on is the impact such
a technique could have on the public's perception of radiation (a subject
near and dear to my heart).  I truly believe that if the technique was used,
it would have a tremendous, positive impact on the public's perception.
Everything that we do, in our little world of radiation, gets scrutinized by
the public.  What positive words do you see coming out of our world to
theirs?  Damn few. As a human being, if all you ever hear is negative,
negative, negative on a subject- then guess what you are likely to believe
about that subject - nothing but negatives.  Do you believe in the positives
of radiation use? Do you believe that we actually do a good job of keeping
it controlled and safe?  I do. I really do. I also firmly beleive that we
need to let the public see that belief. 

We rarely show our human side to the public, and this technique shows a
human side - a side that says "We are human, we may make mistakes, but we
are good".  Obviously people empathise with this idea, otherwise Clinton
would have been long gone.  

Enough for now, catch you later.

Larry  
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html