Los Angeles Hearing

[BLHamrick@AOL.COM]

Just FYI - to all of you interested and following the California legislative developments, I hear that John Gofman will be testifying at Senator Romero's hearing on Friday, March 7.  Thought you might want to know, in case anyone wants to take a trip to this circus.


Recall, Romero's legislation calls for "no radioactivity above background" to be transferred to anyone unlicensed (with limited, poorly crafted exceptions).  Background information provided by her office on her legislation last year indicated that she believed that the EPA had a "limit" of one in a million increased risk of cancer above background for decommissioned sites.  That a one in a million cancer risk (total over an EPA residence time) corresponds roughly to 0.05 millirem per year, using some generic risk-dose values from the EPA, but anyone who's read their CERCLA rules knows that 1E-6 is a starting point, that their risk range is guidance not strict rule, and that in reality they generally deal with radium contaminated sites, and release those sites based on the 5/15 pCi/gram radium rule from UMTRCA, which models well over 25 millirem per year under most scenarios.


According to one of Romero's aides, the hearing is supposed to cover:


1)  Cleanup standards (Stuart Walker USEPA and Bill Corcoran Sierra Club);

2)  Status of the class III disposal moratorium (State Water Bd regulator, Waste Management Inc, Director Bonta, DHS chief legal counsel);

3)  Status of Bridge the Gap lawsuit (Larry Silver, Attorney for Plaintiffs, DHS chief legal counsel)

4) Status of investigation of missing Amerisium containing devices and whether they should be of concern (witnesses being developed);

5)  DHS response to whistleblower action involving an Orange County firm (witnesses being developed including DHS response by Director Bonta)


Also, according to this aide, they believe the "debate in California mirrors that at the Federal level between the NRC/DOE and the Fed EPA," and that "they" (Senator Romero and her aides) are simply making a "risk management" decision as opposed to any "risk assessment," and he implied this meant they didn't need scientists to make this decision (although it seems they've pulled in Gofman to try to add "legitimacy" to their foray into health physics).  It just goes to show how very dangerous only a very little knowledge can be.  I mean, Public Policy 101 should not be the only pre-requisite for redesigning radiation regulation in the largest state in the country.


Think about it.  Ronald Reagan Federal Building, 300 S. Spring St., Los Angeles, 10 - 1:00 on Friday, March 7.  


Barbara, speaking, as always, only for and on behalf of her own personal self.