[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: NCRP 136
Franz Schoenhofer wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: Franz Schoenhofer [mailto:franz.schoenhofer@CHELLO.AT]
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 5:01 AM
To: Jerry Cohen; Jacobus, John (OD/ORS); Ted Rockwell; RadSafe
Subject: Re: NCRP 136
I am serious with the following request: Please explain to me what you
regard as a 'regulator'? You obviously make some distinction between
Congress and Regulator. Are the regulators you mean the government officials
who make law proposals?
I am not too familiar with the US system of legislation. However I would
believe that some basic similarities should exist in all democracies round
the world, namely, that the Parliament (in the US case it seems to be
Congress or maybe the President - yes I know there is a complicated system
how they are controlling each other) is the only body, which can put
legislation into force. Members of Parliament (Congress) as well as the
US-President are politicians and so they are responsible for the laws they
put into force. I am aware, that quite a lot of legislation is done in the
single US-states, but the situation is not really different: Politicians are
the ones, who are responsible for the laws and regulations. Therefore I
would believe, that the ones responsible for laws and therefore to be blamed
for laws which might not reflect common sense are politicians.
Now my problem understanding the fierce blames on 'regulators': In my
country and as well in other European countries by 'regulator' we understand
the government employees in the ministries, who work on proposals for laws.
Government employees are totally dependent on the will of the minister.
There is a very strict hierarchy with the Minister on top, then there are
Sections with their Section Heads and each Section has Departments under a
Department Head. "Ordinary" government officials have to do what the
Department Head says - whatever nonsense it might be, the Department Head
has to do what the Section Head says and the Section Head has to do what the
Minister says. And the Minister is - of course - a politician, who usually
has no idea about the tasks of the Ministry. Please do not try to tell me,
that this is different in the USA. I know that there are exceptions from the
rule. The ordinary officials who work on law proposals have to work
according to what is told them. They might make a proposal, but they have to
forget about it, if it is decided by their supervisors - and finally the
Minister - that the political will is different. If they are ordered to
incorporate the European Basic Safety Standards Directive, which is based on
the ICRP into National Law, they have to do it. Actually it has to, so the
Minister and the Government are not even the end of the queue upward in
hierarchy.
Franz
===================
Franz,
The situation may be a bit different in the U.S. Proposed legislation may
originate with government agencies (who will have to find an individual
senator and a congressman to introduce it in the Senate and the House) or it
may originate with individual congressmen (persons?). Legislation will
usually be written at the policy level, with the details left to be
implemented in regulations issued by the appropriate government agencies (in
the Executive Branch). It tends to be the case that the only times specific
provisions are written into a law are when a congressman wants to bury a
"goodie" in the legislation for a favored constituent or interest group or
when Congress has despaired of getting the Executive Branch to implement
their clear intent in earlier legislation.
We have laws, appearing in the U.S. Code, and regulations, appearing in the
Code of Federal Regulations. The regulations implementing a law appear
later, sometimes very much later. Congress passed a law in 1996 calling on
the FAA to establish oversight of airport security. The airlines and their
friends in Congress conducted a delaying action for several years. The
Clinton Administration implemented the proposed regulations in one of the
"midnight" Executive Orders issued in the early morning hours of the day
Clinton left office. One of the first things the Bush Administration did
was put all of those Executive Orders on hold for review. The airport
security oversight regulations were still being reviewed on 11 September
2001.
My feeling is that as bad as the regulations are in some instances, the
situation would be far, far worse if Congress and congressional staff
actually wrote the regulations (that is, the detailed implementation of
legislation) themselves.
Best regards.
Jim Dukelow
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory
Richland, WA
jim.dukelow@pnl.gov
These comments are mine and have not been reviewed and/or approved by my
management or by the U.S. Department of Energy.
************************************************************************
You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu Put the text "unsubscribe
radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.