[ RadSafe ] Re: OSHA Federal Register Notice
Bradt, Clayton (LABOR)
Clayton.Bradt at labor.state.ny.us
Thu May 5 17:59:45 CEST 2005
Article VI, clause 2., to be exact. Of course in order to be the
supreme law of the land, a statute must be made pursuant to the
constitution.
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/
More information about the radsafe
mailing list