3,450 business organizations which have a membership of some 2,750,000 businessmen.

The chamber's position on this important subject is based upon policies which have been approved by its members and on a comprehensive study by its Committee on Commercial Uses of Atomic Energy in cooperation with other interested committees.

I have with me this morning Mr. Leonard Lederman, who is the secretary of this Committee on Commercial Uses of Atomic Energy. The national chamber appreciates the opportunity to participate in these hearings on Federal-State relationships in the atomic-energy field. We are particularly interested in this subject, first, because of our ardent belief that a strong and healthy Federal system of government is basic to the preservation of the gains this Nation has made in growth, prosperity, and personal freedom; and, second, because we believe that the sound and progressive development of the atomic industry is important to the economic growth of the United States and to the welfare and security of the American people.

The atomic-energy industry is relatively young, and its activities must now be geared into a governmental structure which has been in existence since 1789. The healthy growth of the industry depends to a considerable extent on the nature and practicability of the regulatory controls of various governmental levels.

It is, therefore, important that the responsibilities of the Federal, State, and local governments, and their relationships with each other, be clearly and completely defined. These hearings on Federal-State relationships are timely and should do much to promote a better understanding of the problems involved.

The need to examine Federal-State relationships in the atomicenergy industry can be attributed to the unusual way in which the industry has developed. Ordinarily, a new industry starts locally and is subject to local government regulation. The State and Federal Governments become involved only as the industry expands, or as it begins to market products and services over wider areas.

Regulation or licensing usually comes about when private and public groups recognize a need for control. The development of the standards on which such regulation or licensing is based is typically a cooperative effort, with industry, labor, and Government participating. În many instances the firms in an industry have put recognized standards into early use on a voluntary basis.

On the other hand, the atomic-energy industry had its beginning as a military project and, for reasons of national security, was a tight Federal enterprise operated by the Atomic Energy Commission. Safety and other standards in the industry were developed largely by the industrial contractors to the AEC and were made a part of the operating procedures of the AEC. At this stage there was little need for regulatory control.

This situation changed when Congress passed the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. This act made it possible for private industry to obtain nuclear fuels and byproduct materials under license from the AEC, but for use outside AEC facilities. This appeared to leave certain areas of regulation either undefined or in the hands of the States. The States have been quick to recognize this situation and have taken action to assume responsibilities which they believe are now theirs.

Areas where regulatory control may be required: There are a number of fields involving many Government agencies where some regulation of the atomic-energy industry may be appropriate. These include:

1. Distribution of source, byproduct, and special nuclear materials. 2. Radiation safety of workers.

3. Disposal of wastes and the pollution of air and water.

4. Transportation of radioactive materials.

5. Use of radioactive materials in drugs and manufactured prod

ucts.

6. Zoning requirements for reactors and radiation facilities.

7. Building construction and inspection practices.

8. Licensing or certification of professional personnel.

9. Procedures of emergency agencies such as the fire and police departments.

10. Financing and operation of nuclear powerplants.

It is clear that some of these fields of interest are the specific responsibility of certain agencies of government at some particular level. Other problems, however, are, and should be, of concern to agencies at all levels of government.

Let us consider the problem of waste disposal as an example. If a laboratory or industrial plant is engaged in work with radioactive materials, it may generate some radioactive wastes. The local community has a right to be concerned about the possible release of harmful amounts of such wastes to its water supply or sewage system. Certainly it is justified in passing local ordinances to protect its citizens from the hazards of such materials.

If the wastes to be discharged will go to the ground or surface waters, a considerable area beyond the local community may be affected, and county, State, or even regional agencies may find it necessary to take some regulatory action to control the disposal. In such cases, county and State health departments; water control boards; fish, game and conservation agencies; and regional commissions for the administration of interstate compacts may all come into the picture.

If the wastes are to be disposed of in the ocean, the Federal Government will have to exert the control and this may eventually have to be worked out in international agreements.

Representative HOLIFIELD. You would not advocate this particular statement here in this paragraph, that the subject of disposal of radioactive wastes be left in a hiatus between the adoption of proper compacts by groups of States and the Federal Government?

Mr. MCADAMS. No, sir.

Representative HOLIFIELD. You undoubtedly want the Federal Government to maintain that strict supervision until that occurred?

Mr. MCADAMS. As I go on to say here in the next part of the state

ment

Representative HOLIFIELD. You drew the line there between the local States disposal in the local States and in the ocean as though the Federal Government would have the responsibility in one instance and in the other instance the States would have it?

Mr. MCADAMS. I am saying here that I think in this particular area of waste disposal it is possible that some responsibilities will have to be left with the local community. For example, in the reservoirs which supply the local water, the local community may have to set up limits.

At the same time the Federal Government may have to set up limits for wide areas of waters, for the oceans, and for some of the other situations.

Then there will be agencies in between, and each will have some specific responsibility.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Certainly I think if there is any local hazard, which is narrow in its scope from the release of low level waste materials, that is a proper concern of the local area. But I do not think it is necessarily an exclusive concern because in those areas which are negligent in providing their people this safety I still believe the Federal Government could not discharge its responsibilities unless it took hold of this and took precautionary measures even to the extent of withholding radioactive source materials from that particular operation unless it complies with minimum standards.

Mr. MCADAMS. I spell out our recommendations on this point in detail a little later.

Representative HOLIFIELD. That is fine.

Mr. MCADAMS. Waste disposal may appear to be an example where Federal regulation would be a solution to the problem. This is not the case, however, for there are too many factors affecting this particular problem to make a Federal regulation practicable for all or even most waste disposal situations. The geological and hydrological conditions in the area, the amount of dilution of the wastes, the extent of channeling in the streams, the location of the points of consumption and other such matters will differ from one locality to another and a set of rules adequate to deal with all situations is certain to be unnecessarily restrictive to many.

We believe it is possible to delineate the separate responsibilities of these many agencies in a way which will permit each to analyze the problem with respect to its own responsibilities, and to set its own regulations for controlling radioactive wastes just as it does for other contaminants.

The other fields of interest-transportation, zoning, protection of workers, qualification of professionals, and so on-involve different kinds of problems. In most cases there are existing agencies at one or more levels of government which can deal with the problems satisfactorily. It is our belief that wherever possible the regulatory problems of the atomic energy industry should continue to be handled by existing rather than special agencies.

Status of regulatory control in the atomic industry: During the last 3 days, this committee has heard much testimony about the regulatory actions which various agencies of government have taken to control the atomic energy industry. I would like to review this picture very briefly.

At the Federal level-in addition to the many regulations of the AEC-the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Labor, the Department of Commerce, the Public Health Service, the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Coast Guard, the Post Office Department and many other agencies have each promulgated some rules dealing with the atomic energy field. Most of these have been in the area of radiation protection.

At the State level, 8 States have issued comprehensive radiation protection codes; and 19 have established requirements for the registration of radiation sources, 13 have passed enabling acts making the

health department, or, in a few cases, the labor department, responsible for health and safety in the use of radiation sources and nearly all States have adopted some radiation protection rules.

In addition, many States have approved, or at least considered, legislative proposals on zoning, the use of radioactive materials in drugs and manufactured products, transportation, qualifications of professional people, and a number of other atomic energy matters. The public service commissions of at least a dozen States have issued rulings on the financing of power reactors, and at least three have issued reactor construction permits.

The States are continuing to study the impact of atomic energy on the activities within their boundaries and are organizing to deal with problems as they develop. Fifteen States have passed laws to coordinate atomic developments, and most of these 15 have set up an executive officer to look after these programs. About two-thirds of the States have appointed atomic energy study groups or commissions, and many of these are examining the laws and codes of their States to see if they are adequate to deal with a growing atomic energy industry.

(We have appended to this statement a list of examples of typical legislative proposals which have been considered by the States during the last 2 years. This list is indicative of the many fields of interest which are involved in atomic energy problems.) (See p. 385.)

I might say altogether more than 125 proposals have been considered by the States just during 1958 and so far this year.

Now what effect has all of this regulatory activity had on the atomic energy industry? One cannot be absolutely certain of the answer to this question, but the national chamber's contacts indicate that there have not been too many problems with the regulations to date. This may seem surprising, since so many agencies of government have been involved, but there are good reasons why it is so.

Representative HOLIFIELD. When you say with the regulations to date, you mean with Federal and State regulations?

Mr. MCADAMS. I mean all of them together.

In the first place the major portion of the regulatory action has been in the field of radiation protection. Almost without exception, agencies developing rules in this field have turned to the broadly based National Committee on Radiation Protection and Measurement for advice. The result has been a reasonably uniform set of regulatory controls with only minor variations in details or interpretations.

Another reason why industry has had little trouble with atomic energy regulations is the care which the legislators and officials of government have given to the proposals in the early stages. They have consulted with industry, labor, and professional groups and have been receptive to suggestions for improving the proposals.

They have also shown a willingness to change provisions of codes which have turned out to be too restrictive or not protective enough. The legislators and officials of government have tried to promote uniformity in the rules adopted by giving consideration to model laws, codes, and regulations suggested by such groups as the Council of State Governments and the American Public Health Association.

Of course, it must be recognized that we have been going through a trial period for the last several years. During this time, the AEC has continued to exert a considerable control over many phases of the

industry and other agencies of government have been generally willing to let AEC have free reign. As the personnel in these other agencies become more competent in the field, and as industry grows larger and spreads to broader areas, the whole picture can be expected to change. It is important that we consider now what revisions of the regulatory structure need to be made to promote the best climate for a safe, healthy, and vigorous atomic energy industry.

In the background material prepared for this hearing, the committee outlined nine policy questions which seem to cover the principal issues of Federal-State relations in the field of atomic energy.

Our recommendations on these issues are summarized in our answers to these questions, which follow:

Question 1. Division of responsibilities

Should an amendment delineating Federal-State responsibilities in the atomic energy field provide for

(a) exclusive responsibility by the Federal Government?
(b) exclusive responsibility by State governments?

(c) concurrent responsibility by both Federal and State Gov

ernments so that some or all radiation sources and activities would be

(ulated by both?

separated responsibilities between the Federal and State Governments so that some types of sources and activities would be subject to exclusive Federal regulation, and other types of sources and activities would be subject to exclusive State regulation? There should be an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act to provide for separated responsibilities between the Federal and State Governments so that some matters will be under exclusive Federal regulation, while others will be under exclusive State regulation. However, it should be recognized that there will be some cases where both the Federal and State Governments will have specific responsibilities in the same field of interest-waste disposal, for example. In such cases these separate responsibilities must be clearly delineated.

With respect to current practices, we recommend that all regulatory activity now vested in the AEC be ceded to the States, except for the following:

(a) the reactor safety considerations in the construction and operation of production or utilization facilities;

(b) quantities of nuclear material in excess of Atomic Energy Commission standards of criticality;

(c) the transportation of source, byproduct, and special nuclear material in interstate commerce;

(d) the disposal of source, byproduct, or special nuclear material into any offshore waters or any other disposal in such quantities or of such levels of radioactivity as the Atomic Energy Commission deems may create a general environmental hazard. I believe this answers your question before.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Yes. I think this is very important where State levels might well be trusted to dispose of some of the lowlevel waste itself, but when you get into high-level wastes such as we have to store at Hanford and other places in stainless steel tanks, a complete_control over the continued responsibility which will exist as a result of the long life of these radioactive materials would indicate that this would be a Federal responsibility solely.