[ RadSafe ] Re: OSHA Federal Register Notice

[John Jacobus]

We are a Federal facility.

--- "Glenn R. Marshall" <GRMarshall at philotechnics.com>
wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
=== message truncated ===


+++++++++++++++++++
"Embarrassed, obscure and feeble sentences are generally, if not always, the result of embarrassed, obscure and feeble thought."
Hugh Blair, 1783

-- John
John Jacobus, MS
Certified Health Physicist
e-mail:  crispy_bird at yahoo.com


		
Discover Yahoo! 
Stay in touch with email, IM, photo sharing and more. Check it out! 
http://discover.yahoo.com/stayintouch.html