Page images
PDF
EPUB

think the unique thing here is that the Federal Government's role is now practically exclusive and you have to arrange a transition so that the Federal Government does not march out all at once and create a vacuum. Whether that can be arranged readily under the concurrent jurisdictional approach is in doubt.

Mr. TOLL. I don't see how it can be arranged under the concurrent jurisdiction because under concurrent jurisdiction, just by the meaning of the words, the Federal responsibility remains. It is a concurrent responsibility. They can't let go of it. Whereas under the AEC proposal they could let go of it and turn it over to the States.

Mr. CONLEY. Are you saying that there would be some doubt as to the authority of the Atomic Energy Commission to withdraw from its present activity?

Mr. TOLL. Absolutely. The act now requires the AEC to license and regulate these materials.

Mr. CONLEY. It would depend on the meaning of concurrent jurisdiction, and I would think that the bill could make that clear, and at the same time, make it clear that the States have jurisdiction.

Dr. PORTERFIELD. One disadvantage was mentioned this morning of this method of concurrent jurisdiction, which is the double checking of licensees. It is true that this can occasionally be distressing, but at the same time the double checking has a rather assuring feature to it in that it permits the double checking of dangers from two points of view. So long as the Federal responsibility was paramount and was maintained as such differences of opinion could not lead to dangerous situations. Whatever method the committee recommends to carry out this introduction of the States into this previously relatively exclusive field, the Department does very strongly believe that the basic legislation and the objective should be achieved by the enactment of some legislation.

That is all of the prepared information which we have to provide. If there are any questions I would be very happy to answer them, sir.

Chairman ANDERSON. I think not. Thank you very much. We will have a problem of deciding what this jurisdiction ought to be as far as we can see it. We appreciate the help of the Public Health Service.

Mr. FERGUSON.

STATEMENT OF HON. JO M. FERGUSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF KENTUCKY

Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, my name is Jo M. Ferguson. I am attorney general of Kentucky and vice chairman of the Committee on Atomic Energy Law of the National Association of Attorneys General. Our committee was established in 1957. Shortly thereafter it cooperated in the effort which led to the enactment of Public Law 85744, establishing an exemption from the financial protection requirements of Public Law 85-256 with respect to licenses issued for the conduct of educational activities by nonprofit educational institutions. We are informed that under the provisions of the law 17 institutions have been tendered interim indemnity agreements by the Atomic Energy Commission.

In March of this year, the chairman of our committee, Attorney General Norman Erbe of Iowa, testified before this committee in connection with its hearings on employee radiation hazards and workmen's compensation.

As further evidence of our association's interest in atomic energy matters, I might add that our Committee on Atomic Energy Law cooperated with the Committee on Suggested State Legislation of the Council of State Governments in the development of several items relating to this subject which are to be found in suggested State Legislation program for 1959 and in the joint committee print "Selected Materials on Federal-State Cooperation in the Atomic Energy Field."

Mr. Chairman, our committee assisted in the development of the proposed bill submitted to you by the Atomic Energy Commission. We, as well as other State officials, were consulted by the staff of the Council of State Governments to assist them in evaluating and recommending appropriate changes in the draft bill prepared by the Commission.

With respect to current efforts to clarify federal-state relations in this field, our association, composed of the chief legal officers of all the States, including Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the Territory of Guam, at its most recent annual meeting approved the following resolution:

FEDERAL-STATE RELATIONS IN THE ATOMIC ENERGY FIELD

Be it resolved by the 53d annual meeting of the National Association of Attorneys General, in New Orleans, La., on May 7, 1959, That this association urges the several States to consider carefully the proposals for State legislation in the atomic energy field and workmen's compensation developed by the association's Committee on Atomic Energy Law and the Committee on Suggested State Legislation of the Council of State Governments and contained in Suggested State Legislation-program for 1959 and the supplement to the 1959 program of suggested State legislation; and be it further

Resolved, That the association records its views that the longstanding and basic responsibilities and programs of the States for protecting the public health and welfare should be recognized in Federal legislation and that FederalState relations in the atomic energy field should be clarified; and be it further Resolved, That the President is authorized to continue the Committee on Atomic Energy Law, empowered to cooperate, in the future as in the past, with the Congress, the Atomic Energy Commission and other Federal agencies, and with the Council of State Governments and its committees for the further clarification of Federal-State relations in this field as well as for the development of suggested legislation and intergovernmental administrative arrangements. Mr. Chairman, there is a question as to the extent to which the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 preempted, or may be held to have preempted, the field with respect to the protection of public health and safety from radiation hazards of special nuclear, source and byproduct materials. In the present stage of development, it is probably unnecessary to seek definitive answer to this question. Certainly at the State level, we are aware of the great interest and responsibility of the Federal Government in matters relating to the health and safety aspects of atomic energy. On the other hands, in our Federal system, State governments have always had primary responsibility for protection of health and safety. Furthermore, radiation dangers arising from possession or use of radium and other minerals radioactive in a natural state and X-rays and fluoroscopes are subject only to State regulations and control.

In our view, the bill before you provides a framework within which the several levels of government may operate effectively in the public interest. It provides a satisfactory delineation of responsibility, at least for the new few years, but authorizes cooperation and consultation between and among appropriate regulatory agencies. The bill contemplates, through the use of agreements, assumption by States of such responsbilities as their respective capabilities permit, and it will promote the training of State employees to increase current capabilities. By relieving Federal employees of much regulatory responsibility while assigning such duties to State and local personnel already engaged in similar duties, it will make possible the best use of skilled manpower. The bill is successful in avoiding overlapping authority while leaving no gaps in the pattern of regulatory control. Mr. Chairman, with respect to subsection (i) of the bill, we have been unable to agree on the necessity or desirability of its retention. Some members of our association-probably a majority, although no vote was taken on this point-felt that the effect of this subsection was to place on a strictly probationary basis the authority granted to the States elsewhere in the bill, particularly since it would appear that subsections b(2) and c provide ample safeguards of the Federal interest. Others felt it should be retained to guard against a contingency that cannot be anticipated with our current knowledge. Some on both sides of this question concluded that the subsection might be retained but qualified by a proviso that after some period of years the authority of the Commission to terminate or suspend agreements should lapse. This would still leave with Congress the option to renew or not to renew the authority when the state of knowledge would permit a more nearly definitive conclusion concerning the merits of the authority.

We should like to make a suggestion with respect to another provision. We prefer the language of the March draft of the Commission for subsection i-now subsection j. In other words, we feel that the words "subject to the Commission's regulatory authority" should be inserted following the word "activities." We think this change would clarify the meaning of the subsection.

Departing briefly from my prepared statement with respect to the now subsection j, I would say that the suggestion made here in our meeting was made by some individual members and was not voted on by the entire association. I think perhaps that my prepared statement is a little stronger than the situation warrants with respect to that section.

At our recent meetings in New Orleans we discussed whether we should take a position on the question of what Federal agency or agencies should have primary responsibility in this area. We concluded that this is an internal question to be settled at the Federal level. We do feel, however, that the proposed bill before you will yield of a pattern of governmental responsibility and intergovernmental cooperation under which real progress can be made in the years that lie immediately ahead.

I think it is only fair to say that we question whether the AEC bill now before you, or any bill which might be enacted at this time, can delineate once and for all the respective jurisdictions of Federal and State Governments in this field. It is our hope and expectation that, under legislation which can be enacted by Congress in the near future, the State and local governments will achieve experience in and

knowledge of the problems involved, and that further delineations, granting more extensive authority and discretion to the States, may be possible a few years hence. It is with this thought in mind that we recommend that this committee and the Congress consider this bill favorably.

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I wish to thank you on behalf of the National Association of Attorneys General for having afforded this opportunity to present the views of the association on this important legislation.

Chairman ANDERSON. When Mr. Graham was testifying this morn ing, he said it might be necessary to review these things every 3 or 4 years or some such time as that. You would agree that this is not necessarily a final determination?

Mr. FERGUSON. Yes, sir.

Chairman ANDERSON. We will have to improvise a little bit, play it by ear, and try to find out how we are getting along, and see where we have gotten in a few years.

Mr. FERGUSON. It was our feeling in our meeting that would be the desirable thing and that this bill is a step in the right direction.

Chairman ANDERSON. I think that is a good statement. Are there any questions of Mr. Ferguson?

Representative BATES. Mr. Ferguson, in reference to the preemption, do you feel that there is some language or intent in the bill which would express that, or do you have reference to the Steve Nelson case!

Mr. FERGUSON. I would not want to get into the doctrine of preemption in this hearing. Perhaps it does not belong here. By the nature of the development of atomic energy, I think the Federal Government preempted that entire field and your 1954 act, of course, was a step in the direction of returning some responsibility to private corporations and thereby to the States and local governments. By necessity, I think, this field was preempted and I hope that this progress in legislation will have a tendency to return some of this authority to the States.

Representative BATES. Do you think it is inherent in the legislation rather than being drawn from the Supreme Court decision?

Mr. FERGUSON. It was inherent in the development of this field under the control of the Federal Government.

Representative BATES. Yes, I understand.

In respect to subsection j, you thought you ought to add the words "subject to the Commission's regulatory authority." Would you speak on that a little bit, please?

Mr. FERGUSON. That was the feeling of some of our people. I wanted to say that not all of our members did feel that was necessary. I think as the bill is written that it is evident that within the field of atomic energy anything the States would do would be subject to the authority of the Atomic Energy Commission within these agree

ments.

Representative BATES. You feel personally that this language clarifies the situation?

Mr. FERGUSON. Personally I don't feel that it makes any difference. Some of our attorneys general felt it would be desirable.

Representative BATES. From your point of view, you already believe it is included in the intent of the law?

Mr. FERGUSON. I think so.

Chairman ANDERSON. Are there any other questions? If not, thank you very much, Mr. Ferguson. We appreciate you being here. Mr. FERGUSON. Thank you, sir.

Chairman ANDERSON. Mr. Schwan.

STATEMENT OF HON. ELISHA T. BARRETT, CHAIRMAN, NEW YORK JOINT LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE ON INTERSTATE COOPERATION, READ BY CHARLES F. SCHWAN, COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS

Mr. SCHWAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman, my name is Charles F. Schwan, Jr. I am Washington representative of the Council of State Governments. I should like to read the statement of Mr. Barrett, who is a member of the Senate of the State of New York and chairman of the Joint Legislative Committee on Interstate Cooperation and vice president and chairman of the board of managers of the Council of State Govern

ments.

Mr. Chairman, as an agency of the States, the Council of State Governments has a deep and continuing interest in atomic energy developments. As early as September 1956, the council's committee on suggested State legislation proposed to the States that they enact legislation providing for coordination of atomic development. This proposal, with some amendments, is carried again in the council's suggested State legislation-program for 1959. The same program also contains proposals for State legislation, in some instances accompanied by draft bills, with respect to radiation protection, shoe fitting X-rays or fluoroscopes, workmen's compensation laws and radiation injury coverage, and public liability of State and local licensees for atomic incidents.

Still more recently, in February 1959, the Council published in a supplement to suggested State legislation-program for 1959, an analysis of State workmen's compensation laws and their coverage of workers exposed to radiation hazards, along with suggested legislation to assist States in revising their laws to provide adequate protection. These proposals were prepared in cooperation with the Committee on Atomic Energy Law of the National Association of Attorneys General.

Parallel with this effort, the council has sought to find other means to assist States in preparing themselves to fulfill their responsibilities in this field. In May 1957 for example, it called a meeting in Chicago of State and Federal representatives and some private persons interested in atomic energy development and regulation. The current chairman of this committee spoke at a luncheon meeting during the conference. Among other things, the conferees, representing 3 Federal agencies, 34 States, 2 interstate agencies, and 5 private organizations, discussed the draft bill which the Atomic Energy Commission submitted to this committee in June 1957.

More recently, as a part of its dutes as staff to the Joint FederalState Action Committee, the staff of the council has reviewed successive drafts of the bill submitted recently by the Atomic Energy Commission. In this effort it has received the advice and assistance of a large number of State officials.

« PreviousContinue »