|
Barbara, then would it be also true, that with the
rejection of the NRC LTR, DHS is left with the older rule on the books of less
than 100 mrem per year?
H. Dean Chaney, CHP
URS Corp. Sacramento, CA (916) 679-2086 "In science there is only physics; everything else is stamp
collecting."
--Ernest Rutherford
There was an April 10, 2002 court ruling by Judge Gail D. Ohanesian, in a Sacramento County Superior Court, which effectively struck the California Department of Health Service's (DHS') adoption (by reference) of a more recent version of 10 CFR 20 than was previously in California regulation (also by reference, via the California Code of Regulations, title 17, section 30253) (see the article in the L..A. Times, "Judge Rejects State Guidelines on Nuclear Waste Disposal," April 17, 2002). The more recent version of 10 CFR 20, adopted by DHS on November 14, 2001, incorporated the NRC's License Termination Rule. It is my understanding that, prior to that adoption, DHS' regulatory limits for the release of sites was equivalent to the public dose limit of 100 millirem per year, as were all other 50 states limits prior to their adoption of equivalent regulation. The judge in this case, according to my personal reading of the ruling was misled, by plaintiffs (at least one of which was Committee to Bridge the Gap), to believe that before the adoption of the License Termination Rule, DHS routinely required that decommissioned sites only be released where the residual contamination would result in a dose much less than 25 millirem. Thus, the judge believed that the adoption of the NRC rule could adversely impact public health, because it would allow releases that were higher than previously allowed, so she found that DHS should have performed a California Environmental Quality Act review prior to the adoption of the rule. In my personal opinion, the judge really couldn't have been more wrong. It has long been the practice of virtually every regulatory agency in the country to evaluate releases in light of public dose limits, which until 1994 were 500 millirem per year, and until the NRC introduced the constraint rule (i.e., the License Termination Rule), were 100 millirem per year after 1994. Legally, I would imagine, DHS could appeal this decision if they were so inclined. I do not know if they are. For everyone's edification, radioactive materials in California have long been regulated within the Radiologic Health Branch, which is a part of the Food, Drug and Radiation Safety Division, of the Office of Prevention Services, which is in the Department of Health Services, whose director was appointed by the Governor. Follow the power. And, in case you're really worried about the current circumstance, you might also want to review SB 1623, SB 1444, SB 2065, and AB 2214 (at www.leginfo.ca.gov), all of which are poised to eviscerate all common sense in the area of radioactive materials regulation in this state. You might want to comment to your representatives in state government, the governor, the authors of the bills, and the Senate Appropriations Committee, who will be hearing SB 2065 on May 13, 2002, and are slated to hear SB 1623 and SB 1444 soon as well (date unknown as yet). You might want to get your company management involved, and any professional organizations you are associated with, as well as professional biomedical organizations, the American Cancer Society, California Division, and other institutions sure to be affected by the shoddy science contained in these bills. I'm just saying. Barbara |