Regulations

[Bob Flood <bflood@SLAC.Stanford.EDU>]

I have to agree with those that see no reason for regulations and real
safety to be mutually exclusive, but I understand the frustration of those
who see regulation as a resource-consuming obstacle to providing a
reasonable level of safety in the workplace and for the public. Regulators
must establish requirements that are readily auditable, and that leads to
paperwork and compliance items that use resources for regulator's benefit.
That process is inevitable, but it is still frustrating to see part of our
finite resoures consumed by work done for the regulator instead of directly
for the safety program.

Having said that, I must also say "that's life in the US." Our regulations
are procedure-oriented rather than result-oriented, and will remain so for
a long time. Regulations state those practices the regulatory agencies view
as worthwhile in achieving some level of safety - do surveys, provide
dosimetry, train your workers, etc. The alternative, such as establishing
criteria like individual dose limits and average/median dose criteria for a
worker population, would only result in haggling among regulators and the
regulated community over what is acceptable performance. There's a reason
we have more lawyers than any other country!

As an aside, I received a copy of Micheal Crighton's (spelling?) new book
"Airframe" and enjoyed it immensely. I strongly recommend it to those of
you who take a dim view of an uninformed press publicizing events they
don't understand.


Bob Flood
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center
(415) 926-3793     bflood@slac.stanford.edu
Unless otherwise noted, all opinions are mine alone.