subject to a right of recall or reassertion of Federal authority under certain stated conditions? Would any constitutional question be raised by such a provision?

Transfer of regulatory responsibilities should not be subject to recall or reassertion of Federal authority. Such a provision would seriously qualify the recognition of State authority and its responsibility to protect the health and safety of its citizens. The net effect would be that the Federal Government would retain ultimate authority merely "licensing" the States to carry out that authority.

I feel also here that if you left the situation so that reassertion was possible you would have a situation where it was still unclear as to whether the Federal Government or the State government was really responsible if an incident did occur. It would be uncertain who would be responsible.

Representative HOLIFIELD. The retention of power to ship material within a State might well take care of a situation like that?

Mr. MCADAMS. Yes. But I think at any later date the Federal Government would still be able to step back into the picture if neces

sary.

Question 6. AEC contractors

Should such an amendment expressly exempt AEC contractors, at AEC installations and elsewhere, and/or subcontractors from regulation by State or local agencies?

Atomic Energy Commission contractors and subcontractors, doing work in non-Federal facilities, should not be exempted from regulation by State or local agencies. However, as we stated in point (e) of our answer to question 1, the regulation of the construction and operation of federally owned facilities is properly a Federal responsibility. Federal contract work performed in non-Federal facilities should be subject to the same State regulatory authority as all other work done at these facilities.

Question 7. Federal agencies

Should such an amendment delineate or modify areas of regulatory and promotional responsibility between various Federal agenciessuch as AEC, Public Health Service, ICC, and so forth?

At present, the several agencies of the Federal Government having or assuming responsibilities in the atomic energy field seem to be carrying out these responsibilities satisfactorily and without conflict with one another. Therefore, there is no apparent reason to transfer existing repsonsibilities of any one Federal agency to another Federal agency. However, in the interest of clarity it might be desirable to delineate the responsibilities of the several agencies to avoid future conflicts.

Question 8. Model bills and standards

Should the AEC be directed to work continuously with the States in the development of model regulatory bills and standards? Should adoption of such standards, or other State action be made a prerequisite to transfer of regulatory (authority from the Federal Government to the States)?

The National Committee on Radiation Protection and Measurement is currently revising its model radiation protection code which was

published late in 1955. The AEC, representatives of the States, and other groups are cooperating in this effort and a good model probably will be completed in a few months. The Council of State Governments has developed a model atomic energy coordination act and other groups have prepared two or three models dealing with other phases of the subject.

Representative HOLIFIELD. How much progress has been made in the different States in accepting this model atomic energy coordination act? Can you give me specifically the number of States?

Mr. MCADAMS. I have that back in my statement. Fifteen States have passed laws to coordinate atomic developments.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Along this model line or along their own line?

Mr. MCADAMS. Very similar to the model. There actually is more than one model but, in general they all follow the same principles. So it is 15 States to date. Most of these have also appointed coordinators to handle this responsibility.

Our conclusion is that it would be inadvisable for the AEC, or any other group, to try to develop another set of model codes. More properly the AEC should lend its experience and assistance in improving the models now in existence or under preparation.

Standards dealing with practically all phases of the atomic energy field are being formulated under six sectional committees of the Nuclear Standards Board of the American Standards Association. The work under these committees is well organized and is proceeding as fast as is practical in such a new and highly technical field.

The ASA is the clearinghouse for standards in the United States and organizations of all types participate in its work. We believe that the procedures of the ASA are completely satisfactory for the development of atomic energy standards.

Model codes and standards should be considered as guides for agencies of Government at all levels. Adoption of such models and standards should not be a prerequisite for the transfer of responsibilities from the AEC to a State. A State should be permitted to develop its own regulatory plan, knowing that this plan will be reviewed by the AEC before the AEC releases its responsibilities to the State. Of course the AEC may lean heavily on the model codes and standards in establishing the criteria by which it will evaluate the regulatory plan of a State.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Your thought is that any release of responsibility on the part of the AEC should be done on a State-by-State basis?

Mr. MCADAMS. That is right.

Representative HOLIFIELD. With the approval of the standards and powers to implement which the State might make out in its case? Mr. MCADAMS. This lets the matter proceed at a very nice pace. Representative HOLIFIELD. With deliberate speed?

Mr. MCADAMS. Yes. To make sure you actually have good protection before you turn over the responsibilities.

Mr. TOLL. This is the approach followed by the AEC bill?

Mr. MCADAMS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TOLL. It does enter into individual agreements, and does have the advantage that the more backward States won't receive the responsibility as soon as the States that are better prepared?

Mr. MCADAMS. We believe this is a wise provision in the AEC bill.

Question 9. Licensing of materials and activities in States

If a State should fail to provide adequate health and safety measures to protect its citizens, should AEC be directed to refuse to grant licenses for radiation sources or activities in that State?

The licensing of materials and activities by the AEC should not depend upon the adequacy of State health and safety measures. There is no necessity for such a provision because the AEC would retain the responsibility for health and safety over those things which it continues to license. If refusal to grant licenses is meant to be a method of persuading the States to set up regulations then this policy seems entirely ill advised.

Under such a policy industrial and other organizations operating in such States would be penalized for matters over which they have no control. This would discourage them from engaging in atomic energy activities and seriously retard the growth of the whole atomic energy industry.

Representative HOLIFIELD. This is where you and I part company, my friend. You have been a pretty nice fellow up to now.

But if there is any State that will not assume its responsibilities in this field to protect its inhabitants then in my opinion that State is not entitled to any atomic energy industry because it is more important that the lives of the people of that State be protected than it is for them to have an atomic energy industry.

As long as I have anything to do with writing the law it is going to be that way if I can make it that way.

Mr. MCADAMS. I think we agree that the people of the State must be protected. But we believe that there is no problem as long as the State has a regulatory plan that the AEC has agreed to. The State would have to have a plan before any responsibilities were turned over. Until the responsibilities were turned over, the AEC would still maintain control over the activities by licensee. The AEC would have the power to regulate as it does now.

So you really would not have a hazard to the people because you would still be controlling it through the Federal Government. Representative HOLIFIELD. You just don't want them to say we won't grant you a license unless you protect your people, that is all.

Mr. MCADAMS. I want to make sure we are still able to get a license to do atomic energy work.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Regardless of whether you are complying with the proper standards or not that you have agreed to comply with?

Mr. MCADAMS. We want to comply with standards. In this case. we would comply with Federal standards and not State standards and we would be most willing to do that. We simply would still like to be able to get a license as a business or as a research organization or as a hospital or any other group.

Mr. TOLL. You mean in effect that in a State which does not have satisfactory standards and regulations the Commisison or the Federal Government should continue to regulate?

Mr. MCADAMS. It will still have regulatory control. We believe that this would be adequate. We should still be able to obtain a license in these States if it is under AEC control. This is our position.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Providing that they would comply with the AEC standards?

Mr. MCADAMS. Yes, sir.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Maybe you and I get together after all. Mr. TOLL. Is there a possibility that a plan could be entered and certain responsibilities turned over to a State and then for one reason or another it goes downhill to the extent that you then have a situation that might be hazardous to the people of that State and no Federal control?

Mr. MCADAMS. Of course, this is always a possibility. I rather think that the States tend to improve their laws and codes as they go along. As I finish off this statement here, I say the States are really concerned and interested in the development of a climate in which their citizens can engage in industry to their benefit. In fact, there is an actual competition among the States to formulate and refine State laws to create the best atmosphere for employees, employers, and the general public alike. This competitive process must be allowed to con

tinue.

Representative HOLIFIELD. I think they are, too. We have had testimony before this committee by the AEC's own people that their own regulations have been broken repeatedly in this field. One of our first witnesses from AEC testified that in 50 percent of the cases that compliance was not as good as it should be.

Certainly if we are having trouble on the Federal level, to completely release this to the State with its lack of background and experience in this field, it might indicate we might have more trouble.

Mr. MCADAMS. We believe you should have control by the Federal Government until such time as the AEC concurs with a regulatory plan which the State has set up. We would not transfer the responsibilities to the States until we had a pretty good idea that the States were capable to handle them.

In summary, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States believes that:

1. The Atomic Energy Act should be amended to provide for the transfer of certain regulatory activity from the Atomic Energy Commission to the States.

2. Federal training of State officials should be continued at about the same pace at which it has been progressing for the last few years. Public health officials appear to be particularly well suited to receive this training.

3. An amendment to the Atomic Energy Act should apply only to those materials and activities now covered by the act.

4. Transfer of AEC responsibilities to a State should be carried out only after the AEC and the State have concurred on a suitable regulatory plan within the State.

5. The transfer of responsibilities in this way should not be subject to recall by the AEC.

6. AEC contractors in non-Federal facilities should not be exempted from the State regulations.

7. There is no reason to transfer existing responsibilities of one Federal agency to another Federal agency.

8. Adequate model codes and standards have been or are being developed in the atomic energy field and separate action by the AEC and

other groups not now in this area is unnecessary and would lead to confusion. Such models and standards should not be a prerequisite to the transfer of responsibilities from the AEC to a State.

9. The AEC should not attempt to force the States to develop regulations by refusing to grant licenses to industrial and other organizations in the State.

The chamber believes that these recommendations are consistent with:

1. Our traditional pattern of Federal-State responsibility.

2. The delegation of responsibility to the level of government that can best protect health and safety.

3. The elimination of overlapping jurisdiction of various levels of government.

That completes our statement.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Thank you very much, Mr. McAdams. It has been a well-prepared statement. Mr. MCADAMS. Thank you, sir. (The material referred to follows:)

APPENDIX

TYPICAL EXAMPLES OF STATE REGULATORY BILLS PERTAINING TO ATOMIC ENERGY Air pollution: California Assembly bill No. 172, introduced January 12, 1959, would require the California State Disaster Council to evaluate all available information on the radioactive content of the atmosphere over California and to formulate standards for determining the degree of atmospheric radioactive content harmful to humans.

Burial of radioactive materials: Pennsylvania House bill No. 1077, introduced April 1, 1959, would authorize the State department of health to control the land burial of radioactive material.

Coordination of atomic energy activities: Kansas House bill No. 175, introduced January 29, 1959, provides for a coordinator of atomic industrial development and establishes a nine-member atomic energy advisory board.

General control: New Mexico Senate bill No. 61, introduced January 27, 1959, provides for a State radiation technical advisory council, authorizes the State department of public health to promulgate rules and regulations pertaining to radioactive materials and radiation equipment and requires the registration of radiation sources.

Hazardous household products: Under chapter 211, Indiana laws of 1959, approved March 12, 1959, effective January 1, 1960, a "hazardous household product" is any household product which may cause serious injuries as death by reason of its being, among other things, radioactive. Such products cannot be distributed or sold unless they have been labeled according to specification and registered with the Secretary of the State board of health.

Labeling: Washington House bill No. 437, introduced February 6, 1959, would authorize the department of labor and industries to require labeling of containers of hazardous substances including radioactive materials.

Licensing and registration of X-ray and radiation technicians: New York assembly bill No. 45 and senate bill No. 58, introduced January 7, 1959, would prohibit anyone from practicing as a medical X-ray or radiation technician on and after July 1 unless he is licensed and registered an an X-ray or radiation technician. The bill pertains only to those individuals carrying out procedures as prescribed by a licensed physician or dentist, or perform such duties as are required in the physical care of a patient.

Public utilities: Oregon Senate Joint Resolution No. 40, laws of 1957, adopted May 20, 1957, proposed that the State constitution be amended to permit the State "to develop water power and thermal and nuclear power within the State" either separately or in conjunction with the Federal Government, other States or private industry.

Record keeping: Connecticut bill No. 2588, introduced in the January session, 1959, would require employers to keep records of radiation exposure of their employees and on request supply copies of these records to the employees.