Re: to be or not to be

[R.Ryder@dl.ac.uk]

Roger Gelder orignially said "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."

 I personally do not subscribe strongly to this view. I think (hope) that 
the original legislation arose from  a general realisation of the risk of 
harm from radiation. Certainly there had not been any major accidents by the 
time that the first legislation was introduced.

The terms "accidents and  incidents" are not used or defined in the Ionising 
Radiations Regulations. I am not very familiar with the Nuclear 
Installations Regulations and hence cannot comment. The IRRs do mention 
'certain occurrences' which relate to uncontrolled releases of radioactive 
materials or unexpected contamination.  A general set of legislation, the 
Reporting of Injuries,Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations defines 
a 'dangerous occurrence' as malfunction of the control system of a radiation 
generator or a source not returning to safe condition. The topic of 
accidents and incidents are therefore not widely addressed in the 
legislation.

As for 'monetary penalty, fines', these can only be imposed by a Court of 
Law after the successful prosecution by an Inspector of the Health and 
Safety Executive. A magistrate or jury will decide whether the plaintiff is 
guilty and the magistrate or Judge decides the fine according to the 
severity of the case. An Inspector cannot impose a fine directly.


I hope this answers your questions.

Roy

>Your comment on Regulation UK x USA was really interesting, but could you 
also
>comment about the two following topics, in the Roger Gelder description:

>1)..."accidents, incidents"...
> What are both concepts according with  the UK regulations?
>Reason:  In UK they mention:"The Radiological Incident in Goiania"  however
>in Goiania occurred,  certainly,  a Radiological Accident...


>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.

> " stopping particular practices"

>In UK regulations there are no proposal of fine (monetary penalty)?
>
>Thanks, J. J. Rozental
>Consultant, Radiation Safety & Regulation, Israel
>e mail: <josrozen@netmedia.net.il>
>Jose de Julio Rozental