In most situations, I do not feel it is appropriate to make heroic efforts to save someone from himself. However, in this business, for better or worse, the actions of a few bad actors impact all of us; so the industry cannot tolerate anything less than excellence.
It's not just me, it's the commercial nuclear power industry that disagrees with your philosophy. For example, the INPO radiation protection guidelines (INPO 91-0914 revision 1) states, "Pursuit of excellence in radiological protection involves striving for a level of performance that is well beyond minimum regulatory requirements..."
The opinions expressed are strictly mine.
It's not about dose, it's about trust.
Curies forever.
Bill Lipton
liptonw@dteenergy.com
RuthWeiner@AOL.COM wrote:
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