Page images
PDF
EPUB

had the informal assistance of an attorney experienced in public health legislation. However, to be certain that our recommendations would be more usable under a wide variety of circumstances, mimeographed copies of the final report were sent out to State health and State labor officials, law schools, attorneys experienced in atomic law, and any others that we could think of who might be knowledgeable in the field. In all some 200 or 250 copies were circulated. Replies were received from many of those to whom copies were sent, and we believe that full advantage was taken of their constructive comments.

It was the intention of the NCRP upon the completion of handbook 61 to discontinue its activity in the field of radiation regulations. However, there has been a continuous flow of requests for consultation and assistance from various States and local bodies with regard to radiation protection regulations ever since the report was released in 1955. However, circumstances have shown that this report still remains essentially the only basic pattern for radiation protection regulations and hence there is a continuing need for it as additional States start to enter the radiation regulation field.

In January 1957 the NCRP made some basic changes in the maximum permissible dose levels. These resulted from their own considerations, as well as those of the ICRP. It was, therefore, felt necessary to revise the suggested regulations contained in handbook 61, at least to the extent of putting in the newer maximum permissible dose values in accordance with the 1957 recommendations. Not to do this might easily result in some less experienced groups confusing the old recommendations with the new.

We have also found that while some States modified the suggested regulations to suit their needs, others adopted them essentially verbatim. As I mentioned above, it was never our intention to have this done, but we were in no position to control the situation. Therefore it was decided that as long as we were making some technical changes, we would also attempt to sharpen up the legal language. Accordingly, in 1958 the subcommittee was reorganized under the chairmanship of Mr. W. A. McAdams. The new committee continues some of the original members, but its base of competence has been substantially broadened. At present it includes, among others, representatives from the Public Health Service, the Atomic Energy Commission, and from several State agencies having experience in matters of radiation protection. In addition, an advisory group was established. This contains additional representatives from States and also a number of individuals having substantial experience in the various practical aspects of radiation protection. This committee has been working diligently for the past year and is now preoccupied with its sixth and we hope final draft. This will probably not be ready for several months yet. However, the fifth draft is probably not very far from final and if your committee would like, we can give you a copy for the record.

Representative DURHAM. We would like it, Doctor.

Mr. TAYLOR. I would be very happy to send you a copy of that.

(The paper referred to was not available at the time of publication.) Mr. TAYLOR. I would like to emphasize that upon the completion of the present study the NCRP fervently hopes that it can retire permanently from the business of formulating radiation protection regu

lations. In the meantime, of course, we appreciate we have had a lot of experience in this field and will be happy to work with any groups to whom we may be of assistance.

The revision of our report contained in handbook 61 will leave the basic discussion unchanged. This has been reviewed and we see no particular reason for changing any of our views from what they were several years ago.

Appendix A giving a suggested radiation protection act will either be left as it is without comment, or will be omitted entirely. It is understood that some States have adopted this pattern and on the chance that others may have an interest in some phases of it, it may be continued.

As I mentioned earlier, the Council of State Governments has developed a different pattern of operation. The NCRP has decided that it does not wish to take any official position one way or the other with regard to the strictly legislative matters. We are concerned mainly that any legislative pattern that may be adopted by the States is operationally satisfactory. The best legal means for accomplishing this is something beyond our competence.

As I have have already noted, appendix B containing the suggested regulations, will be revised. The new pattern will follow as closely as possible the old, because the old pattern has already come into use in a considerable number of States. The suggested regulations as previously published and as now being redrafted would be equally well usable under any of the legislative patterns with which we have any familiarity.

To anticipate a question possibly before it is asked, I would like to state the NĈRP takes no position whatever as to whether the regulation of radiation should be solely a Federal matter, solely a State matter, or a combination of the two. From a purely operational point of view, this would appear to be the kind of a task that would be almost impossible to carry out on an adequate scale as a Central Government operation. On the other hand, most of the States are a long way away from being able to handle these highly technical problems by themselves. The suggested regulations in our reports were designed to a major extent with the needs of States in mind. We believe, however, that they can be equally well used either by the Federal Government or even by a unit as small as a city government. Thank you very much, sir.

Representative DURHAM. Thank you very much, Doctor.
Usually you leave us a very fine statement.

I have here before me page 5, appendix B, of the report 61. At the present time approximately how many States have adopted that? Mr. TAYLOR. I do not know exactly. I think that perhaps three or four States have adopted appendix B in virtually the same form in wihch it appears in the handbook. A number of other States have reworked it, keeping the basic principles, but not using precisely the same form.

Representative DURHAM. Was there any difference of opinion between the NCRP and the Council of State Governments? Was the approach the same, or was it different?

Mr. TAYLOR. As far as the technical regulations are concerned, I know of no difference in approach. In fact, I do not believe that

the Council of State Governments has made any particular statements with regard to the technical regulations. I could be wrong about this.

As far as the legislative pattern is concerned, there is a difference of approach, but I do not feel really qualified to discuss this.

The NCRP had the feeling at the time that it made its first proposals that this type of regulatory activity could probably be absorbed in one of the existing State organizations, such as the State health department. I believe that the Council of State Governments recommends the establishment of a central cordinator for handling all such matters.

Representative DURHAM. I think your group, Doctor, have done a very fine service for the country. I like to have agencies act freely and speak their minds and come up with things like you have done in this report. I am a little disturbed by the fact that you suggest this NCRP going out of business. We feel like the task before us is still one of a tremendous nature and in no way finished at the present time. I do not like to work a good horse to death, but it seems to me we will need a lot more help in the future from people who are informed in this field and people know what they are doing, so we can be guided and the country can be guided by the best brains and the best advice

we can secure.

Mr. TAYLOR. It is very gratifying to hear you say that, Mr. Durham. I did not mean to say that the NCRP as a group is going to close shop. I merely meant to say that they do not expect to go further into the regulatory aspects of the work.

Representative DURHAM. I misunderstood your statement. I thought you said there would be no further use for your agency.

Mr. TAYLOR. No, sir. this particular committee activity represents only one committee activity out of 18. We intend to actively continue all the others.

Representative DURHAM. You do intend to continue this committee on in the future?

Mr. TAYLOR. The committee as a whole, by all means.

Representative DURHAM. Mr. Bates?

Representative BATES. Doctor, in your 1955 report, on page 10, you comment upon what the various States are doing in reference to registration or licensing and AEC licensing, and you wound up with this sentence: "Confusion is well on its way."

Do you want to advise us if that confusion has been disspelled by this time?

Mr. TAYLOR. May I just glance at this paragraph a moment, sir? No, sir. The situation as then discribed was one that appeared to exist at that time. I think that because the States that were then concerned were working closely with our group and with other groups, these various and different approaches were reconsidered and the difficulties resolved.

I believe that you will find that at present in this country, almost without exception, registration of radiation sources is the major requirement. Whereas some States had very definitely in mind specific licensing, before any piece of equipment could go into use, I believe this is not now required by any State. I could stand correction on this, but I believe that statement is correct.

I hope that at some time in the future we will find that registration. and inspection will be carried out by suitable agencies. I hope that this technique will suitably provide the control that we need, and that we will not be compelled to go into licensing, which is complicated, slows matters down, is costly, and as a rule does not accomplish a great deal.

Representative BATES. How about AEC-produced radioisotopes? Mr. TAYLOR. The law requires the licensing of their operations. I was thinking more of the 95 percent of radiation sources that are not covered by AEC. I am assuming that the AEC licensing_requirements will be continued in some form or other indefinitely. But that, bear in mind, covers only something in the order of 5 percent of our radiation sources.

Representative BATES. Do you feel that these radioisotopes which are used are handled by people who are sufficiently advised as to the possibility of danger?

Mr. TAYLOR. Radioisotopes such as licensed by the AEC?
Representative BATES. Yes.

Mr. TAYLOR. My answer to that question would have to be, "Yes, I do think so."

Representative BATES. Someone expressed the view when they appeared here, as I recall, that although the license is granted to one party, oftentimes they are used by other people, who were not granted the license. Is that a true statement?

Mr. TAYLOR. I am not qualified to answer that. I think that if this were the case, it would probably be in violation of the AEC regulations. Dr. Dunham would be much better qualified to discuss this than I, but it is my understanding that wherever radioactive isotopes supplied by the Commission are used in connection with human beings, the entire situation, involving the qualifications of the personnel, the equipment, and everything else, is carefully studied before permission is granted. And so, also, where radioactive material is not being used on human beings but in the laboratory, they have to meet some very stringent requirements before a license is granted to them.

And this, by presumption, requires that the people who are going to be using the materials within the laboratory are also adequately trained.

Representative DURHAM. I think that is one thing, Doctor, that people do not generally realize. Of course, we have received a lot of letters, and we are kind of the guilty parties in these radiation hazards, but only 5 percent comes from the AEC and the other 95 percent is coming from sources that have been here with us for a good many years. They just do not seem to realize that fact. And we are the ones catching the wrong end of this thing.

Chairman ANDERSON. In response to a question of Mr. Bates, it seemed to me you indicated there was not much licensing going on in the States, and small possibility for it. Do you think there is any headway in that direction?

Mr. TAYLOR. I think at the present time, Senator Anderson, no States are requiring the licensing of radiation equipment. Let me put it that way.

Chairman ANDERSON. Let me read to you from the Minnesota State board regulations, regulation 1158b:

Before the construction of any nuclear reactor or facility is started within this State, a general description thereof shall be submitted to the State board of health containing such information *

[blocks in formation]

No part of the construction of a nuclear reactor or facility shall be started within this State without the express approval of the board of health until 30 days after the submission to it of such description and information.

And then it goes on to say that:

Within 30 days after such submission the board of health, or its duly authorized agents, may require the submission of additional information relating to any specific matter referred to herein, and the board of health, or its duly authorized agents, may object to any part of the proposed design, description, plans, method of operation, standards, or safety measures, upon the grounds that the public health is endangered, and may require such modification in such design, plans, method of operation, standards, or safety measures as will eliminate the danger to the public health.

Is that not pretty plain?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, sir. I am sorry. In my discussion I should have made it clear that in any matters that come under the AEC regulations and licensing procedures, there may well be licensing requirements by the States also. It is in all of the other areas, as far as I am aware, that no specific licensing is required.

Chairman ANDERSON. Had the State of Michigan had something like this when Detroit Edison was coming up, there could have been quite an argument.

Mr. TAYLOR. There could have been.

Chairman ANDERSON. The State might have said, "Yes," and the Federal Government might have said, "No." Who would win? Mr. TAYLOR. Who would what?

Chairman ANDERSON. Who would control?

Mr. TAYLOR. I am not sure I could answer that. I would presume that the Federal regulations would be preemptive in this case, but I am speaking out of my proper competence at this point.

Chairman ANDERSON. Are there not lots of States that think they have something to say about public health and safety? I do not believe that is one of the fields surrendered by the States under the Constitution.

Mr. TAYLOR. From a purely practical point of view, I think the States have some definite obligations in this respect. From the legal point of view, I would not know. I would not have any opinions, at least.

Representative BATES. Doctor, is it a fair statement to say that recommendations of your committee are predicated more on occupational rather than environmental hazards?

Mr. TAYLOR. The work of the committee was originally oriented with respect to occupational hazards. That is correct. Specific recommendations have been made for the radiation worker. This is the occupational hazard. This is a situation controllable by the operator of the installation.

It also has been specific about recommendations for radiation that may escape from any radiation installation, be it an X-ray machine

« PreviousContinue »