Re: GAO Opens DB Investigation]

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 9/9/02 8:46:18 AM Mountain Daylight Time, liptonw@dteenergy.com writes:



> It's that kind of thinking that got DOE facilities where they are, today. 


And where is that?  In the course of working on various projects, I have visited and worked at a number of DOE facilities (yes, including Hanford) that handle large amounts of radioactive material under a variety of circumstances  in addition to reactors, and their safety practices  are perfectly fine.  Yes accidents happen.  Yes, waste disposal 30 and 40 years ago was not what it is today (nor was pesticide use, nor most ordinary health practices, nor dentistry, nor dietary considerations...).


Why there is an apparent compulsion to beat up on DOE and its contractors with this kind of innuendo beats me.  Moreover, the DOE sites were not regulated by any outside agency until the pilot program begun under the Clinton Administration.  So you can't "blame" not meeting NRC regs for DOE self-regulation.


"We need to do better than the regulations" is one of those mantras that sounds good and is too vague to mean much.


I would really like to have the following questions addressed:


1.  If regulations aren't good enough, why aren't they?  Is there a specific example that you can give of a regulation not being good enough?  

2.  What is "good enough" and how is it determined, if not by the public process that determines regulation?


Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com