Re: GAO Opens DB Investigation]

["High Plains Drifter" <magna1@jps.net>]

NRC rule changes cannot be made without a good cost benefit analysis (which is a regulation itself), and which I support whole heartedly. 

 

 

H. Dean Chaney, CHP
URS Corp. Sacramento, CA
(916) 679-2086

 

"In science there is only physics; everything else is stamp collecting."
                                      --Ernest Rutherford

----- Original Message -----

From: RuthWeiner@aol.com

To: liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM ; magna1@jps.net

Cc: radsafe@list.vanderbilt.edu

Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 7:07 AM

Subject: Re: GAO Opens DB Investigation]

In a message dated 9/9/02 6:13:13 AM Mountain Daylight Time, liptonw@DTEENERGY.COM writes:

That's the real challenge to the industry.  It's not good enough to just meet
the regulatory requirements.

Why not?  Isn't that what regulatory requirements are for?  If the regulatory requirements are not stringent enough, perhaps they should be strengthened, which is a somewhat cumbersome process, but certainly done often.  Results similar to a rule change can often be accomplished by an NRC staff position.

I have always been troubled by the "regs aren't good enough" argument.  If that were so, (a) what IS "good enough" and how is it determined, and (b) what purpose do the regs serve if they aren't "good enough?"  Please don't give me the argument about political considerations being involved in rulemaking.,  Of course there are political considerations -- competing costs and benefits -- which is part of "good enough."  

Ruth
Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.
ruthweiner@aol.com