BILL ANALYSIS
Appropriations Committee Fiscal Summary
208 (Kuehl)
Hearing Date: 05/29/03 Amended:
5/8/03+RN0312795
Consultant: Miriam Barcellona Ingenito Policy Vote:
EQ 5-2
____________________________________________________________
___
BILL SUMMARY: As proposed to be amended, SB 208 would
direct the Department of Health Services (DHS) to direct
the owner of any parcel of land at the Santa Susana Field
Laboratory (SSFL) in Ventura County to do the following if
it determines that a partial or full reactor meltdown has
occurred on the site: (1) establish and use thorough and
rigorous monitoring of the site, as specified, to provide
assurance that all residual radioactive contamination is
identified; (2) ensure that monitoring is consistent with
measures provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (US EPA); (3) ensure that the monitoring measures at
the site consist of at least 80 percent of the surface and
subsurface soil samples identified by the US EPA in a
specified document; and (4) explicitly state that nothing
in this bill requires DHS to conduct monitoring on the site
in excess of that called for under existing regulation or
current practice.
SB 208 also would (1) prohibit the sale, transfer, or lease
of the site for any subsequent land use unless DHS
certifies that the radioactive contamination has been
remediated; and (2) require that radioactive contaminants
are disposed of only at a facility licensed by DHS, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or the Department of Energy,
or at a site pursuant to the Low Level Radioactive Waste
Policy Act.
SB 208 has provisions that would require Department of
Toxic Substances Control to implement the provisions of
this bill if SB 201 (Romero) is enacted and becomes
effective on or before January 1, 2004.
Fiscal Impact (in thousands)
Major Provisions 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
Fund
DHS costs minor
SF*
*Radiation Control Fund
STAFF COMMENTS: Suspense
SB 208 would impose a more restrictive standard than DHS
currently uses to evaluate the cleanup of radioactively
contaminated sites. There is serious disagreement about
what DHS would have to do to ensure that the more
restrictive standard is met. According to DHS, it would
need to acquire more sophisticated equipment to ensure that
the new standards of SB 208 could be met. As proposed to
be amended, SB 208 would explicitly state that nothing in
SB 208 requires DHS to conduct monitoring on the site in
excess of that called for under existing regulation or
current practice.