[ RadSafe ] Re: OSHA Federal Register Notice

Thu May 5 17:55:01 CEST 2005

The supremacy clause.

Clayton J. Bradt, CHP
Principal Radiophysicist
NYS Dept. of Labor
phone: (518) 457 1202
fax:     (518) 485 7406
e-mail: clayton.bradt at labor.state.ny.us

-----Original Message-----
From: Glenn R. Marshall [mailto:GRMarshall at philotechnics.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 11:46 AM
To: WesVanPelt at att.net; vargo at physicist.net; BLHamrick at aol.com;
radsafe at radlab.nl; Bradt, Clayton (LABOR)
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re: OSHA Federal Register Notice

Just where does the U.S. Constitution authorize federal agencies to
trump state law?

Glenn
(my own opinion, blah, blah, etc.)

-----Original Message-----
From: Wesley [mailto:wesvanpelt at att.net] 
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 11:58 AM
To: vargo at physicist.net; BLHamrick at aol.com; radsafe at radlab.nl;
clayton.bradt at labor.state.ny.us
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re: OSHA Federal Register Notice

George and All,

I believe "state regulated activities" such as accelerator produced
radioactive material, x-ray machines, accelerators, etc. actually do
come under OSHA. Since OSHA is federal and includes ionizing radiation,
and there is no "agreement state" agreement with the states, OSHA
overrules the states. On a practical basis, however, OSHA seems
perfectly agreeable to have the states enforce their own patchwork of
regulation of ionizing sources.

Best regards,

Wes

Wesley R. Van Pelt, PhD, CIH, CHP

Wesley R. Van Pelt Associates, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl [mailto:radsafe-bounces at radlab.nl] On
Behalf Of George J. Vargo
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 12:06 AM
To: BLHamrick at aol.com; radsafe at radlab.nl;
clayton.bradt at labor.state.ny.us
Subject: RE: [ RadSafe ] Re: OSHA Federal Register Notice

Barbara,

As usual, your assessment is penetrating, accurate and succinct.

I suspect that some of the apparently naive nature of the questions
stems

from OSHA being an organization that only deals with ionizing radiation
on

the fringe (i.e., there are relatively few activities that actually fall

under their jurisdiction once one subtracts, NRC, DOE, and
state-regulated

activities - what's actually left? Ok, TENORM in some cases, maybe the
VA

and DHS, but, realistically, what else?) and a likely genuine concern to
be

transparent and inclusive in any potential rulemaking.  Asking the same

question several different ways covers them, because they can claim to
have

cast a wide net and it keeps the JDs happy (really - no offense
intended!)

George J. Vargo, Ph.D., CHP 

Senior Scientist 

MJW Corporation 

http://www.mjwcorp.com <http://www.mjwcorp.com/>  

610-925-3377 

610-925-5545 (fax) 

vargo at physicist.net 

-----Original Message-----

From: BLHamrick at aol.com [mailto:BLHamrick at aol.com] 

Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 00:45

To: vargo at physicist.net; radsafe at radlab.nl;
clayton.bradt at labor.state.ny.us

Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Re: OSHA Federal Register Notice

In a message dated 5/4/2005 8:48:43 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,

vargo at physicist.net writes:

The existing 29 CFR 1910.96 is hopelessly obsolete, as it is largely a

mirror image of the 1963 version of 10 CFR 20 - right down to 5(N-18)
and

quarterly limits.  There are a number of Federal activities,
particularly in

the homeland security, transportation security, customs, and border

protection in which the use of ionizing radiation has expanded
tremendously

and I think OSHA has a responsibility to take a fresh look at these

activities.  It would certainly be appropriate for OSHA at the very
least to

harmonize its standards with the 1987 Presidential Guidance and the 1994

version of 10 CFR 20.

Yes, that would be appropriate, at the very least.

I believe Clayton's earlier characterization was apt.  It appears OSHA
is

trying to reinvent the wheel.  I think their call for public opinion on
some

of the issues they're trying to address is like taking a public opinion
poll

on how to perform brain surgery, or calling for a vote on whether or not
the

world is flat.  It appears somewhat naive to me, and that makes me a
little

nervous, not as a regulator, but as a citizen who will end up paying for

this escapade.

Barbara

_______________________________________________

You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list

radsafe at radlab.nl

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/

_______________________________________________
You are currently subscribed to the radsafe mailing list
radsafe at radlab.nl

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood
the RadSafe rules. These can be found at:
http://radlab.nl/radsafe/radsaferules.html

For information on how to subscribe/unsubscribe and other settings
visit: http://radlab.nl/radsafe/