Re: Senate Bill 1043

[Jim, Hardeman]

Clayton, et al. ¯



Just wanted to make sure that you (and everybody else) were aware that this bill only talks about MATERIALS ... although it does include discrete NORM sources and ARM under NRC's control (if passed) ... but it doesn't address machine-produced radiation, such as X-ray.



This bill, however, would significantly expand the reach of NRC, which (depending on your point of view) may or may not be a good thing. My agency (fortunately) only deals w/ materials at this time, so we don't really have to worry about which (if any) federal agency is going to regulate machine produced radiation ... yet.



You might want to make sure that your EP types have seen this document ... I'm sure THEY will be interested.



Jim Hardeman

Jim_Hardeman@dnr.state.ga.us



>>> "Bradt, Clayton" <Clayton.Bradt@LABOR.STATE.NY.US> 7/11/2003 8:50:14 >>>

I haven't read this latest avatar , but the idea of bringing all radioactive

material and machine produced radiation under NRC jurisdiction has enjoyed a

growth in popularity recently.  I have had this conversation before with

Barbara and others in the state radiation control community, and it seems I

am in the minority on this issue (as on most others).  I think that

expanding the reach of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) to include other (all?)

sources of radiation is a terrible idea - for constitutional reasons.  



The protection of public health and safety is a State function falling

within the police powers reserved to the States under the Tenth Amendment.

Congress has been granted no express power in this arena and therefore has

at most a supporting role to play.   The AEA was originally framed with this

construction in mind.  It reserves to the federal govt all aspects of

radiation regulation related to the common defense and security - an express

power of congress, and devolves to the States those aspects which only

pertain to public health and safety.  Only when viewed from this perspective

do the definitions of by-product, source and special nuclear material, and

the respective roles of the States and the federal govt in their regulation,

as set out in the AEA, make any sense.  



The further erosion of State sovereignty, and the resulting confusion in

lines of authority within our federal system, should be avoided.

Furthermore, there is no compelling need for federal involvement in

radiation regulation except as it pertains to national security. 



It is argued that the feds already are involved in public health matters

which are outside Congress' express powers, such as is the case with FDA

regulation of machine radiation sources and EPA regulation of NORM- so why

not expand NRC's jurisdiction?  This is the analog of the argument " I've

already had my right arm cut off, why not the left as well"?  I don't find

it convincing.



Clayton J. Bradt, CHP

Principal Radiophysicist

NYS Dept. of Labor

Radiological Health Unit

voice: (518) 457-1202

fax:    (518) 485-7406

e-mail: usccjb@labor.state.ny.us



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/