Health Physics, Regulations, and Reality

[ehsnet!hps (HPS)]

Reply-to: Wes.Dunn@p2.f13.n233.z1.fidonet.org (Wes Dunn)
Fido-To: hps

In light of the recent commentary here, I thought I'd mention a few
thoughts and considerations.  After all, I have the truly amazing
credentials of being a regulator who actually had outside experience
in Health Physics.  I'm currently in charge of Medical and Academic
licensing in Texas.

First, the title: what do these three things have in common?  Well,
very little, when put together.  But we can always hope.  For those
poor souls who have yet to experience the rule making process (insert
standard joke here), you should be aware that, horrid as it is, you
really need to get involved.  Note that the NRC and other states 
probably do things slightly differently than here in Texas.  But it
goes something like this:

1) the NRC puts out a proposed rule to Agreement States (AS), the
Federal Register and (probably) a list of "interested person" (check
to see if they (and/or your AS - Texas does) do and get on this list).
2) If it might pertain to my program, I "get" to review the proposed
rule.  I put my comments together and send them to my boss.  If he, his
boss and the Standards Administrator, feel like it, my comments are 
sent along with any others to the NRC as representing Texas.
3) NRC ponders all submitted comments, ignores them, and puts out a final
rule.  The NRC then tells the AS they have up to 3 years to publish 
compatible rules.
4) Three years later, Texas realizes the deadline is in 6 months and we need
to have rules in place, follows NRC's steps 1-3 and we have a new rule.

However, Texas can decide to change its rules for other than NRC compatibility
reasons.  In that case, Standards puts together a working paper.  Staff
comment.  The working paper is revised.  Staff comment.  and so on (1 to 
many times) until a Draft Rule is submitted to the advisory board (TRAB).  
They comment and decide whether to put it out as a Draft Rule.  If not, go 
back to the start.  If yes, it goes out to interested persons.  Comments come
back. Staff review the comments, and modify the Draft as deemed necessary. 
If the revisions are minor, it goes to TRAB as a proposed rule (otherwise as
another proposed Draft as before).  If they agree, it goes to the Board of
Health. If they agree, it gets published as a proposed rule and becomes final.

The keys for the HP community?  Get on the interested persons lists.  Comment
on the rules.  And hope someone pays attention.  Also note that advisory 
board meetings (in Texas) are open to the public.  Comments should be clear
and concise.  Any references to impact should be clearly laid out and include
supporting data.  Arguements such as "this means more work for me" don't carry
much weight unless you include the reasons why it will increase workload 
WITHOUT increasing public safety.  Remember, most regulators don't have HP
experience.  If you don't tell them, they don't know what you are talking
about.  Also note that most of the regulated community are limited operations
without HP staff (industrial radiography, dental x-ray, fixed/portable gauges,
etc...)  They don't understand what you're talking about, either.  But they
are the people taking up most of the regulators time, energy and thought.

If you're interested, I'll try to cobble together another missive on how to
deal with regulators on other topics (amendments/inspections).

Wes Dunn
Token Revenuer

(note: this is my own time and money, so this isn't a disclaimer)


--- msged 1.99S ZTC
--- eecp 1.45 LM2 

 * Origin: Health Physics Liberation Front  (1:233/13.2)
--  
HPS - via FidoNet node 1:233/13    (ehsnet.fidonet.org)