Re: Scaling back regulations

[William V Lipton <liptonw@dteenergy.com>]

It would be worthwhile to look at the NRC's new Reactor Oversight Process, which is described on the NRC's Web site.  Each inspection "finding" must go thru a "significance determination process" before further action is taken.  If the finding is not considered risk significant, it usually does not result in a Notice of Violation.

This is not a "free ride."  The power reactor industry has made a significant commitment to self monitor and report safety significant information.  Each plant's performance indicators are posted on the Web site.

I agree with you in my dislike of "new-age management-speak."  I have trouble spelling "paradigm," but I know that they're always shifting!

The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.

Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com

OFFTOWY@aol.com wrote:

...

> The current system is built for the regulator, not the licensee.  We can probably all agree that a dose exceeding the limits is significant from some safety perspective.  The current system focuses on identifying and punishing precursors to such events (and precursors to precursors).  Maybe, just maybe, if nobody exceeded a dose limit, an event really has no particular safety significance and should not be a violation of Federal regs.
>
> Standardization has advantages, but maybe that should be in the realm of the standards orgs, not the regulators.  I hate the California new-age management-speak, but maybe it is time for a new paradigm.
>
> Lew LaGarde
> offtowy@aol.com
> ************************************************************************
> The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
> information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html

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