Re: GAO Opens DB Investigation]

[RuthWeiner@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 9/9/02 10:52:39 AM Mountain Daylight Time, liptonw@dteenergy.com writes:



> ."    Although you may think that, "their safety practices  are perfectly fine...",  this resulted in  the shutdown of the High Flux Beam Reactor.  Was the safety program for the HFBR "good enough?"  Not if it wanted to keep running.  If you don't believe that "perception is reality," I assure you that it's real enough for the employees who were laid off and the researchers whose projects were cancelled. 


 I deplore any action that was taken SOLELY because of pressure that had been generated by so-called "activists."  No, it wasn't the "perception" that shut down HFBR, it was Brookhaven caving in to the "perception is reality" crowd.  If we didn't have "perception is reality," the pressure wouldn't have been nearly so great. 


(2) "If regulations aren't good enough, why aren't they?"  I hope that there aren't any 

> regulatory agencies out there who take that seriously.  If so, the response would be, "Make my day!" Regulations that are "good enough" follow when the regulated community does not pursue excellence on its own.  This is what's happened with the EPA, in RCRA and CERCLA.  Here's one example.  EPA is concerned about the long term storage of hazardous waste.  There have been situations where unscrupulous companies stored waste and then abandoned the facility, forcing the public to pay for cleanup.  As a result, there are strict time limits on hazardous waste storage, for example, 90 days for "large quantity generators."  If you exceed that, here are a few of the things that can happen:  (1) You are subject to a fine of $25K/day.  This is for!
>
>  an inadvertent violation.  If it can be shown as "willful," you are subject to criminal penalties.  (2) The EPA can consider your facility to be an unpermitted storage facility, and, hence, subject the requirement for a "closure" plan, which can cost $ millions.  Is storing waste for 91 days a threat to pubic health and safety?  Probably not, but many waste generators decided to follow the regulations and nothing more. EPA obliged, and made the regulations "good enough."  I hope that the NRC is never forced to make its regulations "good enough."
>
>
> The above (which is a slight mischaracterization of RCRA and CERCLA) actually makes my point.  According to what you have been saying, these regs (in the example you give) are "good enough."  So where's the beef?  By the way, there is a section of RCRA that allows exemptino of any materails regulated under the Atomic Energy Act.  The WIPP was exempted from RCRA Part A because it was recognized to be inconsistent with the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (that also gave certification authority to EPA).


 3.  "What is good enough?"  I'll admit that this is a tough one.  Two points,  however:  

> (a) If you can do better, you're not "good enough."  (b) If we don't define, "good enough," ourselves, the regulators will do it for us; probably by shutting us down. 

What's "doing better?"  How is it determined?  Who decides?  I have asked you to do exactly that -- define "good enough".  You say "do it ourselves" but you aren't doing it.  Do it for the Davis -Besse situation, please.


Ruth Weiner, Ph. D.

ruthweiner@aol.com