California - Battleground for (In)Sane Regulation

[BLHamrick@AOL.COM]

Dear Radsafers,


Yet another example of the tension between science and political capital has recently arisen.  California's legislature has, in the last two weeks, been introduced to three pieces of legislation:


SB 2065 (Kuehl) on "Radioactive Waste"

SB 1444 (Kuehl) "Radioactive Contamination Prevention Act"

SB 1623 (Romero) "Radiation Safety Act of 2002"


(These are all available at the California Bill Information site (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html)


As a health physicist for the California Department of Health Services, Radiologic Health Branch (on whose behalf I am NOT authorized to speak on this subject), I am apoplectic over the mis-use and abuse of our legislative system to advance the agenda of Mr. Daniel Hirsch of "Committee to Bridge the Gap, and to generate political capital for State Senators Kuehl and Romero.  I'll let you speculate as to Mr. Hirsch's motives.  


The purported purpose of these bills is to protect Californians from the release of items and lands containing residual radioactivity.  However, there is not a shred of sound science influencing any of these proposed bills.  In fact, it is my understanding that Romero's office rejected attempts by the Cal-Rad Forum, and other professional groups to discuss the bill directly with Romero.


As it happens my State Senator, Senator Bob Margett (SD 29 - the Diamond Bar area), is on the committee to whom Romero's legislation was referred (the Senate Select Committee on Urban Landfills), and I intend to write to him, and attempt to explain the gross misunderstanding of radioactivity, radiation, risk and regulation underlying this bill, and the other two as well.


I would also like to include in my letter to him, a list of names, and possibly resumes of professional health physicists that he might contact for confirmation and additional information.  I would prefer they be certified health physicists (though, ironically, I'm not yet certified), and it's a bonus if they live in California, though "nationally-recognized experts" from any state are certainly welcome.  If you are such a person, and wouldn't mind being added to a list of contacts in my letter to State Senator Margett, please contact me off the list, either at BLHamrick@aol.com, or at 909-629-6806. 


In addition, if you live in California, I would strongly urge you to contact your own Senator and Assembly Member regarding this proposed legislation.  If you do not live in California, you may want to let your California colleagues know (in particular if they are licensees) of this pending legislation.


For some historical perspective on these issues:


In November 2001 (after proper publication and public comment), California's Radiologic Health Branch promulgated the NRC's License Termination Rule, to reduce the potential dose allowed from terminated sites to 25 millirem per annum (which dose previously could have been up to 100 millirem per annum), to provide clear unambiguous clean-up criteria (which criteria previously was at the discretion of the Branch), and to maintain compatibility with the NRC (which is required by the California Health and Safety Code, section 114965, as well as our agreement with the NRC - note, however, based on current compatibility guidance, California could have opted for a lower dose criteria than 25 millirem per annum).


Mr. Hirsch objected to this regulation vehemently at the public hearings, but provided no substantial and/or scientifically sound evidence for not adopting the regulation.  Subsequent to its adoption, Mr. Hirsch filed a suit against the California Department of Health Services, claiming they had violated their obligations under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA - the State equivalent of NEPA).  In the suit, he asked the Court to issue a stay to prevent effect of the rule.  He was denied.  I believe their will be a hearing on this sometime in March, though I don't know if it's a hearing on other preliminary motions, appeal of the denial of the stay, or simply an appearance to set the case for trial.


In the meantime, Mr. Hirsch was busy contacting State Legislators in an attempt to push through legislation that would effectively moot the License Termination Rule.


For example, proposed SB 1623 requires that all "radioactive waste" (defined to be any discarded radioactive material with radioactivity above background) be transferred to a specifically-licensed entity.  It also creates a rebuttable presumption that any material originating from a licensed site is contaminated, and the owners must use "the best available technology" to demonstrate that there is no residual activity above background prior to release of the material to an unlicensed entity.  The proposed bill provides various and sundry exemptions for effluents, "short-lived" materials, Tc-99, and items specifically exempted by the NRC.  What the proposed bill effectively does is to prohibit the transfer of any items, equipment, soil, building materials, etc. or even "normal" waste from any licensed site, since the rebuttable presumption clause would require the survey and sampling of any item ever leaving the site.  Imagine a UCLA or City of Hope trying to meet this requirement with "the best available technology."


Proposed SB 1444 picks up where SB 1623 leaves off and prohibits the sale, lease or transfer of any site, soil or structure with residual radioactive material either above background, or alternatively which delivers a risk of cancer (or any other serious health effect) in excess of one in a million, ever.  If you choose the "one in a million" option over the "background" option, you must also place a permanent deed restriction on the property prohibiting the transfer off-site of the soil or structure that is residually-contaminated, except to a specifically licensed facility.


Proposed SB 2065 then caps things off with a requirement for, and I'm not making this up, the Department to maintain a file of, and I quote, "all radioactive waste generated, stored for decay, stored for transfer, transferred, treated, released directly to the environment, or disposed of by, or on belhalf of, a generator in the state."  The file is to specify "the category of generator, class, quantity by activity, and volume of low-level radioactive waste, including the peak and average quantities in storage, along with the location, and the chemical and physical characteristics of that waste, including its half-lives, properties, or constituents, and radionuclides present at, or above, the minimum labeling requirement, with their respective concentrations and amounts of radioactivity…how the generator measured the identified waste and, if the identified wastes have not been measured directly, the process and assumptions relied upon by the generator to estimate the quantities of the identified waste."  Okay, Senator, for a billion dollars per year budget increase, we could probably do this, but but we won't be able to inspect licensees, take enforcement action, respond to radiological emergencies, or independently confirm any license termination surveys anymore.  


These bills a) attempt to undermine the authority and professional integrity of the NRC, b) demonstrate a gross ignorance of, and complete lack of concern for, the most basic elements of science and risk-based regulation, c) effectively replace science and professional judgment with anti-nuclear folklore as the basis for regulation, d) create impossible regulatory threshholds without any evidence whatsoever of a health and safety benefit, and e) ultimately will severely harm the already weak California economy.


Finally, if anyone else is interested in reading the bills in their entirety, and providing me with their professional analysis of the bills' impact, I'd be happy to receive such analyses also, and include them in my future letters.


Thanks for your time,

Barbara L. Hamrick, M.S. Physics, J.D.