cies to participate in the Commission inspections of licensed activities. We called a meeting of interested State and Federal officials in Washington in 1955, shortly after completion of our first set of regulations. At that time, we briefed representatives of some 37 States concerning regulations then in effect or under consideration, and discussed generally the role of the States. Following that meeting, we established an advisory committee of State officials to advise us in the preparation of regulations to establish "Standards for Protection Against Radiation" (10 CFR, pt. 20).

We have also set up a system to notify appropriate State officials of applications for commercial waste disposal and of all applications to construct and operate nuclear reactors. We have conducted and attended meetings with State agencies and legislatures to familiarize them with Commission procedures and requirements and to assist them in considering problems of radiation protection, insurance, workmen's compensation, and other problems confronting them. We are working closely with a subcommittee of the National Committee on Radiation Protection to develop a model revised State regulation for protection against radiation hazards.

Many State universities and colleges are doing research work on problems of radiation under contracts with the Atomic Energy Commission and many State agencies are engaged in research activities in the atomic energy field under Commission contracts. We have cooperated and assisted in the establishment of many State and local educational and training programs in the atomic energy field. The financial and other support which the Commission has given to these programs has contributed tremendously toward creating a manpower pool on which the States can draw for personnel and assistance in establishing and carrying out their own radiation protection programs.

In the spring of 1958 the AEC announced plans for providing radiological assistance to States and local governments in the case of a serious accident involving radioactive material. These procedures have been coordinated with interested State and local officials.

One of the first major steps taken at the State level to promote and regulate peaceful uses of atomic energy took place in 1954 when the New England Governors' Conference established a committee on atomic energy. That committee published a model State bill in 1955 which, with a number of changes, was included by the Council of State Governments in its recommended legislative programs for 1957 and 1959. Legislation similar to this bill has been adopted in about 11 States. This bill provides for a State coordinator of atomic energy, requires State agencies to examine the adequacy of existing State laws and regulations in light of atomic energy developments and prohibits the possession without a license of materials and facilities for which the Atomic Energy Commission requires that a license be obtained. In approximately eight States, comprehensive radiation safety regulations have been adopted by departments of health or industrial safety.

Considerable attention has been devoted during the last few years to the need for clarification of the responsibilities of the Federal and State Governments for regulating atomic energy. In 1957 a Joint Federal-State Action Committee was appointed by the Governors of the 48 States and the President. The Committee issued a report in December of that year recommending that the Atomic

Energy Act of 1954 be amended in order "to clarify the roles of the Federal-State Governments, to make possible the assumption of greater responsibilities of the States in the future promotion and regulation of the peacetime uses of atomic energy."

Bills providing for readjustment of Federal-State responsibilities in the atomic energy field were introduced by Congressman Durham and Senator Anderson in January 1956, and January 1957, respectively (H.R. 8676, 84th Cong., 2d sess.; and S. 53, 85th Cong., 1st sess.). Essentially, both bills provided for turning over areas of the Commission's regulatory responsibilities to the States when the States become competent to exercise such responsibility.

The bill which the AEC submitted to the Joint Committee in June 1957, adopted a different approach, primarily in that the Commission's bill would have provided for the exercise of dual or concurrent jurisdiction by both the AEC and the States over activities licensed by the Commission.

Since June 1957 we have reexamined the entire problem and the three bills referred to. As a result of our study since that time we have decided that the general approach incorporated in Congressman Durham's and Senator Anderson's bills is preferable to that incorporated in the Commission's proposed bill of June 1957. The proposed bill which the Commission sent to the Joint Committee last week, May 13, and which was introduced yesterday by Mr. Durham, H.R. 2714, adopts the basic approach to this problem which was incorporated in Senator Anderson's and Congressman Durham's bills, although there are differences in procedures and the provisions of our proposed bill are considerably more detailed. The bill submitted last week contains a number of modifications made since an earlier version of the bill was furnished to the committee in March of this year. We have been advised by the Bureau of the Budget that the adoption of legislation along the lines of this proposed bill would be in accord with the program of the President. We will be prepared to discuss the provisions of the new bill on Thursday, May 21.

Our presentation today is designed to indicate some of the principal activities in which the Commission is engaged under the present law and how we carry out our responsibilities in connection with those activities. The six areas to be discussed today are: (1) Contract operations at Commission-owned facilities which are not subject to licensing; (2) Waste disposal; (3) Training of personnel for health and safety work; (4) Inspection; (5) Reactor hazards; and (6) Licensing.

Written statements have been prepared covering these six areas, to be presented by AEC witnesses.

Representative DURHAM. Very well.

Mr. GRAHAM. As some aspects of these problems have been discussed extensively in recent hearings before this committee, our presentation will emphasize waste disposal, training of personnel, and inspection.

However, in order to place this work in perspective, we believe that an introductory statement by Dr. Charles Dunham, Director of Biology and Medicine, on the aspects of AEC contract operations would be helpful. He will also touch on the Commission's biomedical research program.

Thereafter, Dr. Joseph Lieberman, Chief of Environmental and Sanitary Engineering Branch of the Division of Reactor Development, will discuss waste disposal, with particular reference to licensed activities.

The third witness, Mr. Oscar Smith, Director of Industrial Relations, will discuss the training of personnel.

The last witness today will be Mr. Curtis Nelson, Director of the Division of Inspection, who will discuss inspection of licensed facilities.

In the interest of economy of time, these witnesses will summarize their written statements.

Also present, representing the Commission, are Dr. Clifford Beck and Mr. Harold Price, who are available in the event that you may have questions regarding reactor hazards or our licensing activities.

If this procedure is agreeable to the committee, we will proceed expeditiously in order to avoid encroaching on the time of other witnesses who are scheduled to present their views.

In behalf of my associates I wish to thank the committee for having allotted these 2 hours today to the Commission.

So, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I should like to ask Dr. Dunham to be our lead-off witness.

Chairman ANDERSON. Before that would you state how many States you now think are qualified to assume regulational authority over radiation sources? Are any States now qualified to do it?

Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. Chairman, it is our general feeling that there are several States which would be prepared to move forward rapidly if this legislation were passed. I think that we need the legislation to give them the incentive to really move forward.

Chairman ANDERSON. How much of the AEC budget for the fiscal year 1960 is devoted to assisting the State governments toward assuming greater responsibilities?

Mr. GRAHAM. Senator, this is spread through various divisions of our budget. Would you give us an opportunity to try to submit for the record some figures on that, that would pull these together? Chairman ANDERSON. Yes. That would be fine. Submit a statement covering that.

(The following letter was subsequently received:)

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C., July 28, 1959.

Mr. JAMES T. RAMEY,

Executive Director,

Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,

Congress of the United States.

DEAR MR. RAMEY: At page 66 of the stenographic transcript of the hearing on May 19 before the Joint Committee concerning Federal-State relations, Senator Anderson inquired as to how much of the AEC budget for fiscal year 1960 is devoted to assisting the State governments to assume greater responsibilities for regulation of radiation sources.

The Commission's programs to assist States to assume greater responsibilities for regulating radiation sources were described in detail in the testimony presented by Commission representatives at the hearings. With the exception, however, of one item of $100,000 for the training of State employees exclusively under the radiological physics fellowship program, the Commission's budget does not separately identify costs to be devoted solely to the purpose of State assistance. The reason is that the listed programs also serve other purposes and the amounts for State assistance cannot be practicably separated.

We have not considered that it would be feasible, for example, to determine how much of the cost of our programs in radiation protection might reasonably be allocated to the purpose of assisting States even though these programs represent a major source of information and assistance to those States interested in developing plans for regulating radiation sources. Similarly, with respect to contracts with State universities and colleges for research and training, there would be no reliable basis for determining what portion of the contract costs might be attributable to assisting the States in developing scientific and technical competency for dealing with radiation protection problems.

Another important source of assistance is through direct contacts of the Commission's staff with the agencies of those States currently interested in radiation protection. The Divisions of Biology and Medicine, Inspection, Licensing and Regulation, and Reactor Development, and the Office of General Counsel devote many man-hours per year to working with and advising State agencies on problems in this field. It has not been our practice, however, to keep account of the staff's time given to this work. For this reason and because of the variety of interests concurrently served by the programs referred to in the testimony, any estimate of the portion of cost assignable to State cooperation and assistance would, we believe, be necessarily arbitrary and possibly misleading. It is to be noted, however, that the potential value of these programs to the States is one of the factors upon which their justification is based.

Sincerely yours,

Chairman ANDERSON. Dr. Dunham?

A. R. LUEDECKE, General Manager.

STATEMENT OF DR. CHARLES L. DUNHAM, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

Dr. DUNHAM. Mr. Chairman, my testimony will be in three parts. The first has to do with the impact of our biomedical research program on State regulation health activities. Then there will be a statement on the onsite regulation control within AEC installations; and finally a brief statement on the standards of radiation protection. The latter I wish to introduce into the record and will not read. (See p. 38.)

The Division of Biology and Medicine, in fiscal 1959, has a $43 million research program and a $2,500,000 training program, each with varying degrees of impact on radiological health activities: $18,760,000 is spent on research directly related to development of information needed by such bodies as the National Committee on Radiation Protection for promulgating recommendations on permissible levels of exposure to radiation; an additional $4,064,000 goes for research, which is aimed at developing a comparable body of information for standards involving environmental contamination and waste desposal. This money is exclusive of the $2,648,000 being spent on fallout measurements in air, soil, plants, food, and people and the many millions spent at AEC sites on housekeeping activities which are providing basic data for the environmental standards. We spend $2,083,000 on dosimetry and instrumentation work; $1,440,000 on research toward better methods of radiation protection; $919,000 in radiation measurements, and $3,632,000 on research related to prophylaxis and treatment of radiation injury; a total of $30,898,000 plus the fallout studies. This information is all freely available to State health authorities for their information and guidance as they develop more and more active programs in radiation health protection. Much of our research effort is carried out at State and private universities and colleges. For instance, we support research in 47 differ

ent States, including Alaska, and in 45 different States we support 222 projects, which involve research conducted at 69 different Statesupported institutions. And of the 36 universities and colleges which sponsor the Oak Ridge Institution of Nuclear Studies, 25 are State supported.

This research program has not only met the AEC's needs, but it is developing across the country a body of scientists trained in the safe use of radioisotopes and in many instances scientists extremely knowledgeable in radiation medicine and radiation problems, generally, who are now serving on State advisory committees on atomic energy matters.

In our environmental radiation studies and our ecology research, as well as through our civil effects of atomic weapons activities, we have both assisted and asked assistance of State health personnel. For a number of years through our operations offices we loaned to State and local civil defense organizations both radiation detection instruments and radiation sources for civil defense training purposes.

When the Colorado Plateau States and the USPHS wished to make studies of the health hazards of the uranium mines, we gave technical assistance through our Health and Safety Laboratory in New York; and in addition, we funded a large share of the cost of the first few years of this program, and our Grand Junction office has from the onset given it logistic support. Through the USPHS we have funded the costs of the radiation air surveillance programs which is carried out principally in State health departments and has been very important, both directly and indirectly, in familiarizing State health personnel with certain aspects of the radiological health problem. We have cooperated with the State of New Jersey by funding a full-scale followup study of radium dial workers, and becaues of special circumstances in Colorado, we have funded a whole body radiation counter to be located at the Colorado State Health Department laboratories in Denver. Our Health and Safety Laboratory, which is closely integrated with our Washington-administered research program, has on innumerable occasions assisted State and city health officials, both by responding to requests for technical help and by performing special radiochemical analyses.

In the training and education field we have developed special fellowship courses and summer institutes and equipment grants which will be discussed by Mr. Oscar Smith.

In short, the Division of Biology and Medicine of the USAEC has from its inception endeavored through its research program and through its training and education program to develop across the country a familiarity with and an understanding of radiation. The AEC has gone further. In the course of developing programs to solve radioactive waste disposal problems, in developing an air radiation surveillance program, in providing offsite monitoring for weapons tests and in its civil effects tests programs, it has made it possible for State health personnel as well as USPHS personnel to gain firsthand practical experience in dealing with radiation health problems. Now for a word about onsite radiation hazard control: The Commission's control of radiation hazards in its own operations follows a pattern, developed over a period of more than 15 years, to provide in the most effective and economical manner adequate radiation protection both to radiation workers and to the general public.