Re: regulations

[Marti Brown <mrbrown@bechtel.com>]

> In a draft NRC report it is asserted that "Operational safety and
> regulatory compliance are not exclusive concepts."
> 
> Just to start off the New Year right I would like to pose this question:
> Do you agree with this?
> 
> Related questions:
> What fraction of the regulatory compliance activities you are involved in
> have a direct or immediate influence on operational safety?
> 
> I would argue that....
> 1. The two ARE largely exclusive.  Although obviously not completely so
> the overlap is sufficiently small as to be ignorable.  While the
> underlying purpose of the regulations is public and worker safety the
bulk
> of the regulations have a very tenuous relationship to safety.  Many
> regulations exist simply to make the regulatory system work.  2. It is
> entirely appropriate that they are largely exclusive since they serve
> different purposes.  "Operational safety" is the function of maintaining
> and administering a safe operation on a day to day basis. "Regulatory
> compliance" is just that, and a large fraction (if not most) of the
> regulations are only remotely related to operational safety.  3.
Confusing
> the two functions is detrimental to the successful accomplishment of
both.
> 
> Have a Happy New Year.
> 
>  
> the above are the personal musing of the author,
> and do not represent any past, current, or future
> position of NIST, the U.S. Government, or anyone else
> who might think that they are in a position of authority.
> NBSR Health Physics
> NIST
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899
> 301 975-5810
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> Lester.Slaback@nist.gov
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 


I disagree that the two are mutually exclusive.  It has been my experience
that in today's environment the safety and health's professional
responsibiliities are (1) protect the worker (2) protect the public, (3)
protect the environment and (4) protect the company from liability. 
 The only way to protect your employer from liability is to make sure that
you are in compliance and have the documents necessary to prove it.  I hate
to say it - but the legal system we have today makes it too easy for people
to sue our employers  - and win. I cite for example the ex-NRC inspector
who sued a California utility since she contracted a rare form of cancer.
Her excuse was she was not aware of the hazards. That is bunk. She has a
masters in HP from University of Florida, and she had passed the NRC
resident inspector training requirements. I didn't graduate from Florida,
but I would assume that they discuss radiation biology and risks in their
training. I have been through resident inspector training - and I know the
NRC does....

It is people like her that have made "protect the company from liability"
part of the safety professional's responsibility.

Martha Poston-Brown
Bechtel Environmental
MRBROWN@Bechtel.com