Re: Regulations

[R.Ryder@dl.ac.uk]

I read Sandy's comments with great interest. Sandy presents his views 
against the background of his (obviously quite considerable) knowledge of 
the US regulations.

Over the past several years that I have read Radsafe I have been astonished 
at the amount of regulations concerning radiation that the US suffers from. 
I can not comment in detail because I am not familar with the US regulation. 
Britain seems to have far fewer  regulations. Indeed there is much talk of 
reducing the burden of legislation, WHERE APPROPRIATE, so as to keep costs 
down, particularly to small businesses.

There is NO equivalent of state legislation. Every one in Britain works 
under the same legislation. The 3 main sets are:
1) The Ionsing Radiation Regulations, 1985 covers all work with radiation 
and radioactive materials.
2) The Radioactive Substances Act, 1993 covers the authorisation, use and 
disposal of radioactive materials.
3) The Nuclear Installations Act. This only relates to 'major users' of 
radiation on certain specified site such as reactors, fuel reprocessing etc..

These regulations  are usually well thought out and are not revised for many 
years. The 1993 Radioactive Substances Act replaced the 1960 version!.

Now to answer Sandys points in detail.

1. and 2. seem to cover the same point. Inspections under the Nuclear 
Installations Act are done by highly trained specialist inspectors from the 
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate.  Smaller users are inspected by a 
specialist branch of the Health and Safety Inspectorate. The smallest users 
are inspected by the general inspectors of the HSE. They have access to 
specialist inspectors for advice and would not issue improvement or 
prohibition orders without taking further advice.
3. and 4. Recomendations are just that! If not accepted, they are not direct 
evidence of having commited an offence. Depending on the degree of hazard as 
seen by the Inspector, an Improvement  Order could follow. A  Prohibition 
Order would be imposed if there was an immediate obvious risk to the health 
of a person.  There is the right to appeal against these Orders. An 
Inspector can take an organisation to Court at any time or  if Improvement 
and Prohibtion Orders are not complied with, it depends on the degree of 
harm from the hazard. If a court case does arise, there is all the normal 
rights of representation, expert witnesses, selection of jury etc as in a 
non-raiation case.
5. No-one said that equal weight is given to recommendations and 
regulations. Recommendations are only a first stage, which can help to 
reduce the confrontational attitudes.
Runaway inspectors can and do happen.Some Inspectors will always be more 
'enthusiastic' or 'rigorous' than others.  No system is perfect. These 
Inspectors soon become known for their ways. Each case needs to be handled 
according to the circumstances.

Roy Ryder

Daresbury Laboratory

Britain
 ----------
From: "Sandy Perle" <sandyfl@ix.netc
>2)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.<

This is quite different from regulatory inspections in the U.S. I
also see where this type of an inspection can be quite serious, for
many reasons. These are just a few of my observations:

1. What background does the average inspector have?
2. Does a facility generally get inspected by an individual who is
    cognizant of the facility business that is being inspected?
3. To allow an inspector to make recommendations that potentially
    have a "prohibition notice, stopping particular practices" is
    quite drastic. What recourse does a facility have to argue
    against a recommendation they feel quite strongly against?
4. A recommendation seems to be very similar to our Regulatory
    Guides, Information Notices, etc. The primary difference is that
    they are just that, recommendations, unless they are commited to
    by the facility.
5. By giving equal weight to recommendations as are given to
    regulations is a dangerous thing. While we may not agree with the
    current regulations, at least we know they are regulations. Seems
    that an inspector can promote their own agendas with their
    recommendations.

So, what safeguards are there in the event of a "runaway" inspector?

Sandy Perle