Re: regulations, compliance, etc. (reply)

[Roger Gelder <74167.2472@CompuServe.COM>]

In the UK, I have always considered regulations to be a direct 
reflection of accidents, incidents and errors giving rise to either
radiation exposure or very nearly to an exposure. Without regulators
examining such events and incorporating remedies into legislation
we are fated to repeat the worst parts - and those for which we may
have been most criticised in the past.
UK regulations on radiation exposure were first drafted in the 1940s
updated in the 1960s and thoroughly reviewed and redrafted in the 
mid-1980s. The first were simple 'Do Not Do This', the later set were
preoccupied with industrial details of failure over the intervening 
20 years and the last regulations, whilst still containing 'Do Not Do' 
aspects, also incorporated responsibility with the user, his workers 
and the professional afvisers they were required to employ. The last 
set of regulations additionally incorporated a much stronger advisory 
content.
Employers had an input to the regulations and, by-and-large, implement
them very successfully, without excessive complaint. Inspectors in the UK
now have powers, after a visit, to 
     (i)   advise on recommended improvements (ALARP)
     (ii) if ignored, issue Improvement warnings, and
    (iii) if all else fails, issue Prohibition notices, stopping particular 
           practices.

       Roger Gelder,
       Exposure Estimation Group,
       National Radiological Protection Board,
      Chilton, Oxon, UK

      Disclaimer: My thoughts, my experince.