Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 12515683

Restructuring nuclear regulations.

Abstract

Nuclear regulations are a subset of social regulations (laws to control activities that may negatively impact the environment, health, and safety) that concern control of ionizing radiation from radiation-producing equipment and from radioactive materials. The impressive safety record among nuclear technologies is due, in no small part, to the work of radiation safety professionals and to a protection system that has kept pace with the rapid technologic advancements in electric power generation, engineering, and medicine. The price of success, however, has led to a regulatory organization and philosophy characterized by complexity, confusion, public fear, and increasing economic costs. Over the past 20 years, regulatory costs in the nuclear sector have increased more than 250% in constant 1995 U.S. dollars. Costs of regulatory compliance can be reduced sharply, particularly when health and environmental benefits of risk reduction are questionable. Three key regulatory areas should be closely examined and modified to improve regulatory effectiveness and efficiency: a) radiation protection should be changed from a risk-based to dose-based system; b) the U.S. government should adopt the modern metric system (International System of Units), and radiation quantities and units should be simplified to facilitate international communication and public understanding; and c) a single, independent office is needed to coordinate nuclear regulations established by U.S. federal agencies and departments.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Kenneth L Mossman. 2003. Restructuring nuclear regulations.. https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.5650

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Workplace health and safety regulations: Impact of enforcement and consultation on workers' compensation claims rates in Washington State.

BACKGROUND: There has been considerable debate in the public policy arena about the appropriate mix of regulatory enforcement and consultation in achieving desired health and safety behavior across industries. Recently there has been a shift in federal policy toward voluntary approaches and constraining the scope of enforcement programs, although there is little evidence that this might improve health and safety outcomes. To address this, we examined changes in lost time workers compensation claims rates for Washington State employers who had (1) no OSHA State Plan (WISHA) activity, (2) enforcement, (3) consultation, and (4) both types of visits. METHODS: Compensable claims rates, hours, and WISHA activity were determined for each employer account with a single business location that had payroll hours reported for every quarter from 1997-2000 and more than 10 employees. We used a generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach to Poisson regression to model the association between WISHA activity and claims rate controlling for other external factors. RESULTS: Controlling for previous claims rate and average size, claims rates for employers with WISHA enforcement activity declined 22.5% in fixed site industry SIC codes compared to 7% among employers with no WISHA activity (P < 0.05), and in non-fixed site SICs (e.g., construction) claims rates declined 12.8% for employers with enforcement activity compared to a 7.4% decline for those with no WISHA activity (P > 0.10). WISHA consultation activity was not associated with a greater decline in compensable claims rates (-2.3% for fixed sites and +3.5% for non-fixed sites). WISHA activity did not adversely affect worksite survivability through the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Enforcement inspections are significantly associated with decreasing compensable workers compensation claims rates especially for fixed site employers. We were unable to identify an association between consultation activities and decreasing claims rates.

Government Regulation↗