Re: Governor Gray Davis has vetoed SB 1970

[BLHamrick@AOL.COM]

In a message dated 09/30/2002 7:49:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time, maury@webtexas.com writes:





> Thanks to all of you for bringing me back to earth. Barbara,
>
> is there still a federal route that can be
>
> pursued that I think you spoke of recently? I sure hope this
>
> comes to some kind of rational conclusion when it is finally
>
> settled. But I guess some heavy hauling still remains.






Yes, yes, and yes.  I think we all need to wait and see what the California Waterboard does with respect to their mandate to enforce a "moratorium" on radioactive materials from decommissioned sites going to public landfills.


We also have to see what the order means to DHS in terms of current, pending decommissioning requests.  The Governor's Executive Order (Order) says that DHS must go thru the CEQA process to establish decommissioning standards.  My life experience tells me this will take one to two years, minimum.  If the Order halts all progress in releasing any sites for one to two years, then I think the NRC's interest will be piqued, and if a reasonable interim compromise isn't found rather quickly, then a petition to terminate the agreement with the State may be appropriate.


As I read the Governor's veto message and Order, he clearly did not understand the full extent of SB 1970, nor does he understand the implications of his Order.  It is just as vague as SB 1970, though less broad.  And, of course, its almost silly in its exposition of the results of the recent litigation, in that, it clearly ignores the fact that a very extensive, comprehensive environmental study was performed by the NRC in their adoption of the License Termination Rule.  To think, for even a fleeting moment, that California could do a better job on their own, with the State agencies' pathetic funding, and impossibly constipated hiring and firing practices, is either psychotic or moronic (in my never humble opinion).


OTOH, the immediate result appears to be that, for those licensees not in "decommissioning" status, life should go on as usual - i.e., licensed release criteria for "non-radioactive" waste doesn't appear to be affected, so if one's license conditions say you can dispose of or transfer equipment without regard to the residual radioactivity if the surface contamination meets the licensed limits (e.g., Reg. Guide 1.86), then "Landfill, Ho!"


All of this, of course, is my personal opinion on this issue, and does not represent any particular agency's views or positions on the matter.  If you are a California licensee, you should formally consult with DHS on this matter if you have any questions.


Barbara