BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1456
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1456 (Kuehl)
As Introduced February 19, 1004
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE : 22-16
ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY 5-2
--------------------------------
|Ayes:|Laird, Chu, Levine, |
| |Lowenthal, Hancock |
| | |
|-----+--------------------------|
|Nays:|Aghazarian, Leslie |
| | |
--------------------------------
SUMMARY : Prohibits an owner or operator of the Santa Susana
Field Laboratory (SSFL) site in Ventura County from using,
selling, transferring, or leasing any part of that site for
residential use unless the United States (U.S.) Environmental
Protection Agency (US EPA) finds, in writing, that radioactive
contamination at the site has been surveyed and remediated in
accordance with federal law. Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits an owner or operator of the SSFL site in Ventura
County from using, selling, transferring, or leasing any part
of that site for residential use unless the US EPA finds that
radioactive contamination at the site has been surveyed and
remediated in accordance with the federal Comprehensive
Environment Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA).
2)Makes legislative findings and declarations that a special law
is necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable
within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the
California Constitution because of the unique legal status and
circumstances regarding radioactivity at SSFL in Ventura
County.
FISCAL EFFECT : None
COMMENTS : Background on radiation exposure: According to the
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, the
SB 1456
Page 2
U.S. population receives a radiation dose of a little more than
one-third of a rem a year, mostly from background radiation.
Although exposure to small amounts of radiation is believed to
cause fatal cancer or hereditary defects in human beings,
verification of this causal relationship is difficult. While
roughly one in five deaths that occur in the U.S. are from all
types of cancer, the estimated risk of dying from natural
background radiation (principally radon) in a lifetime is
roughly one in 100. According to the International Commission
on Radiological Protection, the estimated lifetime risk of
cancer death resulting from exposure to human-generated sources
of radiation (including medical sources) is much smaller,
estimated at one in 3,000.
Background on federal cleanup standards: Various federal laws
and regulations/standards have been developed and administered
by US EPA, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and other
agencies. US EPA has a mandate to regulate environmental
contamination, while NRC has a responsibility to regulate
civilian uses of nuclear materials.
NRC issues licenses, and, in some cases, maintains agreements
with signatory states by which those states regulate possession
of certain radioactive materials for certain uses (e.g.,
research and medical). In California, the Department of Health
Services (DHS) issues all of the licenses except for all federal
facilities and those facilities that exceed a specified critical
mass of special nuclear materials. These licenses include those
issued for diagnostic and therapeutic medical use, biomedical
applications, research, and other purposes.
US EPA requires, under CERCLA, "Superfund" sites to be
remediated to a level resulting in between one in 15,000 and one
in 1,500,000 additional premature cancer deaths. According to
the author's office, sites such as SSFL, are under the
jurisdiction of NRC, which has low-level waste standards
allowing for a level of residual contamination resulting in an
increased theoretical risk of cancer death of one in 1,000.
The exposure limits and risks associated with federal radiation
standards and guidelines established by these two agencies
differ in part due to a lack of interagency agreement on the
technical assumptions underlying various standards. According
to the U.S. General Accounting Office, agencies' calculation
methods often differ, reflecting a major difference of
SB 1456
Page 3
philosophy and giving different results.
According to the author's office, SSFL, on the border between
Ventura and Los Angeles Counties was contaminated by both
radioactive and chemical releases beginning in the 1950's. The
site has been used for rocket engine testing and nuclear reactor
research for approximately 40 years. Cleanup operations have
been taking place for over a dozen years and are expected to be
completed in 2007.
Because SSFL is a defense facility, the cleanup standards are
set by the Department of Energy (DOE), which serves as the lead
agency for cleanup. US EPA has served in an advisory capacity
to DOE on this facility.
On December 5, 2003, US EPA issued a public statement indicating
that ongoing cleanup operations at SSFL are inconsistent with
federal environmental regulations, and leave too much
radioactivity behind to allow future development at the site or
even unrestricted recreational uses. The cleanup standards at
the facility do not meet US EPA criteria because they are based
strictly on radioactive levels rather than the cancer risk they
pose. US EPA disagrees with DOE over the cleanup efforts, but
has no legal authority to enforce US EPA regulatory standards on
this site. DOE has refused to follow US EPA cleanup standards,
and US EPA has ceased its oversight efforts.
Opponents contend this bill inequitably singles out one site and
represents overkill given risks and cleanup levels used at the
site. They raise the issue that the 15 millirem/year soil
cleanup standard imposed within Area IV is already more
restrictive than the 25 millirem/year standard required by NRC.
Opposition, Boeing, states that it has complied with all federal
and state laws and regulations to ensure the safety of any
future residents on-site, as well as of residents in the
surrounding community.
At the Assembly Environmental Safety & Toxic Materials Committee
hearing, the opposition, Boeing and Southern California Edison,
raised the concern that this bill violates the U.S. Constitution
Taking Clause. The Fifth Amendment provides that "private
property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just
compensation." The more drastic the reduction in value of the
owner's property, the more likely a taking is to be found.
However, if the state merely regulates property use in a manner
SB 1456
Page 4
consistent with the state's "police power," even though the
owner's use of his property, or even its value, has been
substantially diminished, then no taking has occurred. For a
land use regulation to avoid being a taking, it must satisfy two
requirements: 1) it must "substantially advance legitimate
state interests;" and, 2) it must not "den[y] an owner
economically viable use of his land." ( Agins v. Tiburon , 447
U.S. 255 (1980). The author argues that this bill does not
result in a taking. This bill does not prohibit all viable uses
of this property. If SSFL is cleaned to the standard set by
DOE, as it is currently doing, this bill would not prohibit all
viable uses of the property. The property may be used for
industrial or commercial purposes. Furthermore, this bill does
not ban the use of residential purposes altogether, rather, it
states that the cleanup has to be to US EPA cleanup standards
for residential use. Lastly, the land that SSFL is situated is
currently not zoned for residential use.
Supporters state that this bill is a long overdue improvement to
the cleanup standards for SSFL. Residents of the communities
near SSFL have struggled for years to obtain full cleanup of the
radioactive contamination on the site, which experienced a
partial nuclear meltdown in 1959. A proponent, Sierra Club
California, contends that although this bill cannot solve all of
the site's problems, it does address the strange difference in
cleanup standards among agencies. It further states, "A cancer
death is a cancer death, regardless of its source, and radiation
should not be allowed to kill more people than chemical
contamination does."
In light of the findings of the US EPA letter dated December 5,
2003, this bill prohibits SSFL to be used for residences unless
the site is cleaned up to US EPA standards for residential use
properties. This bill would allow continued use or sale of the
site for commercial/industrial purposes.
Analysis Prepared by : Joanne Wong / E.S.&T.M. / (916) 319-3965
FN: 0006179