BILL ANALYSIS
Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
201 (Romero)
Hearing Date: 5/19/03 Amended: 4/29/03
Consultant: Miriam Barcellona Ingenito Policy Vote:
EQ 5-2
H&HS 8-1
____________________________________________________________
___
BILL SUMMARY: SB 201 would (1) transfer all of the
Department of Health Service's (DHS's) ionizing radiation
functions to the Department of Toxic Substances Control
(DTSC); and (2) require that future cleanups of sites
contaminated by radioactivity in California meet U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency standards.
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
Fund
DHS Program Shift (about $15,000)
GF/SF*
DTSC Program Shift about $15,000
GF/SF**
Additional DTSC Costs unknown, in excess of $3,770 annually
GF
UC Costs unknown, in excess of $1,000 annually
GF
_____________
*Radiation Control Fund
** Radioactive Materials Control Fund, created in SB 201
STAFF COMMENTS: This bill meets the criteria for referral
to the Suspense file.
SB 201 would move most, but not all of the personnel from
DHS's radiological health and environmental management
branches to DTSC. Staff estimates that this would result in
about a $15 million program shift from DHS to DTSC. DTSC
would be required to develop new position classifications
and hire second level supervisor positions and a
radiological health program manager. DTSC would likely
require additional legal staff and public participation
staff to deal with the increased workload. Additionally,
SB 201 would require DTSC to complete and implement a
classification review of the health physicist
classification. There would be additional costs associated
with physically moving those personnel and equipment, which
are spread throughout the State, and integrate them into
DTSC's headquarter and field offices. Administrative
costs to the State would increase by about $3.77 million
annually because administrative costs per person are
significantly higher at DTSC ($37,000 per employee) than at
DHS ($8,000). (Those estimates are based on the figures
presented in the Governor's 2003-2004 Budget submitted to
the Legislature in January.)
SB 201 would (1) repeal the Radiological Control Law and
enact the Radioactive Materials Management Act, (2)
establish the Radioactive Materials Control Fund and (3)
require that all fees, penalties, interest earned and fines
collected under the Radioactive Materials Management Act be
deposited into the fund for expenditure by the department
upon appropriation by the Legislature to implement that
act. SB 201 would create the Nuclear Medicine and
Radiological Materials Control Fund in the State Treasury
and would require the fees and
SB 201 (Romero)
Page 2
penalties collected under certain provisions, including
certain moneys currently in the Radiation Control Fund, to
be deposited into the fund. It would authorize the
department of Health Services to expend the money in the
fund to implement and enforce those provisions. It is not
unclear what functions are remaining at DHS nor is it clear
how the existing funds in the current Radiation Control
Fund would be divided between the two new funds.
In addition to the existing requirements under law that are
being transferred to DTSC, SB 201 would make new
definitions and has new requirements; for example, SB 201
would prohibit DTSC from certifying that a radioactive
contamination is remediated unless remediation is conducted
pursuant to specified standards, guidance, procedures and
practices (it would use a detection level equal to
back-ground). Given DTSC currently does not have expertise
in this area, it was unable to provide estimated costs to
fully implement SB 201. However, costs could be
significant.
The University of California (UC) would also incur
significant costs by the changes made in SB 201. According
to UC, by changing regulations away from the current 500
millrem per year patient release limit to the risk level of
one cancer in a million as the patient release limit, SB
201 would significantly increase patient care costs without
providing individual or public health benefits. Costs for
one treatment alone are estimated to be in excess of $1
million annually. UC is currently working on other
estimates for other treatments that would be impacted.
STAFF NOTES that the author is working with UC and may
amend these provisions to not change the current patient
release limit.
Based on figures taken from the Governor's 2003-2004
Budget, administrative costs are significantly higher per
person at DTSC than at DHS (see table below).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dept.|Total |Admin PYs |Total Admin. |Percentage of |Admin/PY |
| |PYs | |(in |Positions in |(in |
| | | |thousands) |Admin. |thousands) |
|-----+------+-----------+--------------+----------------+-----------|
|DHS |5,673.|816.8 |$44,957 |14.4% |$8 |
| |5 | | | | |
|-----+------+-----------+--------------+----------------+-----------|
|DTSC |1,011.|187.5 |$37,871 |18.5% |$37 |
| |7 | | | | |
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative costs for 130 additional people, using
numbers in the Governor's budget, would result in increased
costs to DTSC of $4.81 million and savings of only $1.04
million to DHS (resulting in a $3.77 million cost to the
state).