All 66 Stat. 710. (1) By striking out "during the calendar year in which the request is made or during the preceding calendar year" and inserting in lieu thereof "during the six-month period immediately preceding the date on which the request is made”. (2) By adding at the end of such section the following new sentence: "Whoever willfully violates this section shall be fined not more than $500." SEC. 4. The Act entitled "An Act relating to certain inspections and investigations in coal mines for the purpose of obtaining information 55 Stat. 177. relating to health and safety conditions, accidents, and occupational 30 U.S.C. diseases therein, and for other purposes", approved May 7, 1941, is §§ 4r-40. amended (1) By inserting immediately after the comma at the end of the enacting clause the following: "That this Act may be cited as the Short title. 'Federal Coal Mine Safety Act'.". (2) By inserting immediately below the matter inserted by paragraph (1) the following: "TITLE I-ADVISORY POWERS RELATING TO HEALTH AND SAFETY CONDITIONS IN MINES" (3) By striking out "this Act", wherever appearing therein, and inserting in lieu thereof "this title". (4) By striking out "That the" at the beginning of the present 30 U.S.c.§ 4f. first section and inserting in lieu thereof "SEC. 101. The" (5) By redesignating the presently designated sections 2 to 12, 30 U.S.c. inclusive, as sections 102 to 112, respectively. $$ 48-40, 41 (6) By striking out "section 1" in the presently designated section note. 2 and inserting in lieu thereof "section 101" (7) By striking out "section 1 or section 2" in the presently designated sections 3 and 4, and inserting in lieu thereof "section 101 or section 102". (8) By striking out "section 3" in the presently designated section 4 and inserting in lieu thereof "section 103". (9) By striking out "section 6" in the presently designated section 7 and inserting in lieu thereof "section 106". Approved July 16, 1952. I would like to quote from the proceedings of the U.N. Conference on Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy held in Geneva, 1955, and a paper presented by Dr. George G. Manov, whom I believe is known to the committee, and a man who was administrative assistant, I believe, to either the Chairman or one of the Commissioners. Mr. RAMEY. To Commissioner Libby. Mr. GOODMAN. He presented a paper entitled "Administrative Problems in the Industrial Utilization of Atomic Energy," and on page 36 there is a section entitled "The Cost of Routine Radiological Safety Protection." You recall that I raised this subject because earlier when the question had been raised as to whether or not protection standards should be set on an individual basis, rather than averaged over a total population, Mr. Taylor had said, and I quote now from page 216 of his earlier statement, "Consider the cost to plant operation if a legal limitation of 5 rem is put upon the individual worker," and then discussed that point. I have quoted this earlier in the record. He said this could be very costly and seriously retard the atomic energy industry. Possibly he knows more about this than Dr. Manov, but what Dr. Manov said was, and I quote from page 36 of volume 13 of the proceedings: What are the costs of routine radiological safety protection in atomic energy installations? From the administrative point of view, however, it is interesting to note that the Atomic Energy Commission spends approximately $100 per year per man to insure radiation protection and that the costs of other safety devices, conventional types, are quite small by comparison. It is estimated that the cost of radiation protection is about 1 percent of the total operating expenses and that if it were desired to protect against radiation by an additional factor of 10, the cost would be 2 percent of the total operating costs. In other words, it would have been possible to take the maximum permissible limit, which at that time was 300 milliroentgens per man per week, and reduce it to 30 milliroentgens per man per week at a cost of only 1 percent of the operating costs of the Commission or of the particular installation. For anyone to say that the protection to health which this would afford would be excessive and retard the industry in my opinion raises a collective bargaining issue that should be discussed across the collective bargaining table, rather than set by a self-established, self-voluntary chosen committee, and have their recommendations accepted by agencies of the Government as the basis for establishing legal limitations. This recommendation was not so ridiculous because your first witness at these hearings, Mr. Whipple, presented a paper at that time. This is a paper entitled, "Radiation Hazard Control for Power Reactors," and it is published and released by the American Institute of Chemical Engineers as Pre-print No. 17 of the Conference of Nuclear Engineering and Science Congress held in Cleveland in December 1955. If I may merely read his summary conclusions of a long paper on this subject Representative HOLIFIELD. Are you sure he has not revised his opinion since he put that out in 1955 Mr. GOODMAN. I am sure he has. It seems to me if one were to take all this in the context in which I am presenting it to you, when the figures were made available it was interesting to me that when members of this committee asked the AEC in March of this year if they had figures on the cost of safety, they advised you that they did not have any available. They did at that time. Representative HOLIFIELD. Proceed. Mr. GOODMAN. Summary, and I quote: The record maximum permissible exposure of 0.3 roentgens per week has a small but significant risk for a lifetime occupational exposure. It is strongly recommended that a figure no greater than 0.1 of this be taken as the criteria for nuclear plant operation-nuclear powerplant. Proper regard for control of radiation hazard in the plant design will reduce the risks to employees and will also reduce operating costs. If standards are to be set primarily on the basis of a consideration of cost, it seems to me that they ought to be set by a division of government properly established by this committee, and not by a voluntary committee headed by a physicist who says in his opening or who has said in the past that he has taken on this task without the proper scientific basis for doing so. I would recommend, therefore, that the way to proceed would be for this committee to reject the Commission's proposals, to establish a division either in the Public Health Service or in such an organization as the National Academy of Sciences, which independently would have the legal obligation and the powers and the funds to establish maximum permissible standards based upon the findings of scientific fact and not based, as Mr. Taylor says, on the question of the cost to industry of development of this science. Representative DURHAM. I am sure you are aware of the record that has been established by the AEC and it has operated pretty large industrial plants throughout the country. I don't think you can contradict that. Their safety record is better than any industrial concern that I know of in the whole country. Mr. GOODMAN. I would not want to ask the executive director of the committee to take the stand, but he has sat with me with workers from the plants who say that these records are inaccurate and that these records have been doctored. I merely mention that because he has independently heard these workers say that workers have been brought into the plant on stretchers in order to be able to show that the particular plant did not have lost time for a given pay period. Mr. RAMEY. This was at a public meeting at which I made a talk. I also suggested that these facts be documented and be submitted to the committee for its consideration in the employee radiation hearings. Representative HOLIFIELD. They did have the opportunity to come in. Mr. RAMEY. Yes. This was before the employee radiation hearings. Representative HOLIFIELD. I have heard a lot of speeches and heard a lot of statements made, too, by people that did not stand up on further investigation. Mr. GOODMAN. A similar paper was presented. Representative HOLIFIELD. We are getting along pretty well, Mr. Goodman. You have had an hour and 15 minutes on the stand and it is 15 minutes past five. We do not want to cut you short so you go right ahead. Mr. GOODMAN. A similar paper was presented at the Atomic Industrial Forum in September 1956, entitled, "Safety Costs for Reactor Projects." I present these because I believe the committee has not had this kind of information as to what safety costs, and this in view of the quotations that I have read to you from those who have been in charge seems to be the fundamental question. If it is, the workers in industry will insist on the maintenance of the highest safety standards and reject the attempt of the Commission to curtail their responsibility in this field. At this point I would like to request that the statement on this matter, though it is entitled, "Employee Radiation Hazards and Workmen's Compensation" by the AFL-CIO Executive Council, which has been distributed to the members of the committee, be included in the record, because it discusses primarily the whole question of State versus Federal regulations. Representative HOLIFIELD. Which is this? Mr. GOODMAN. The one you have before you, sir. Representative HOLIFIELD. The one that is dated February 19 at Puerto Rico? Mr. GOODMAN. Yes. Representative HOLIFIELD. That will be accepted. (The document referred to follows:) STATEMENT BY THE AFL-CIO EXECUTIVE COUNCIL ON ATOMIC RADIATION HAZARDS AND WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, SAN JUAN, P.R., FEBRUARY 19, 1959 Organized labor has urged rapid and widespread development of peaceful uses of atomic energy-but we insist that it go hand in hand with, and not at the expense of, safety of workers and the general public. The objective of safe progress has by and large been reasonably achieved thus far in the United States. This is so primarily because control of atomic radiation hazards has been a Federal responsibility. But there has been a concerted and broadening effort to put the job in the hands of the States. We emphatically oppose any dilution of Federal responsibility for atomic health and safety. The departure from a Federal program would be dangerous because the great bulk of States and localities cannot provide the necessary financial or personnel resources or the continuing interest and attention required for an effective radiation control program. Moreover, abandoning of responsibility to States and localities would inevitably breed a multiplicity of radiation regulations with resulting conflict, duplication, and perilous departure from sound standards. We cannot afford such relaxation of radiation safety enforcement. The significance of radiation safety goes beyond the number of potential injuries or deaths. Failure to control radiation hazards thoroughly may jeopardize confidence in their controllability with a resulting loss of worker and public confidence and the growth of a fear of radiation which can seriously impede all atomic progress. Radiation hazards also have raised special problems in the field of workmen's compensation. Here the States have had full responsibility. They have shied away from needed action as though it were radioactive. They have an almost unmarred record of failure to revise the compensation laws to take account of radiation protection needs. As was acknowledged in the recent convention report of the International Association of Industrial Accident Boards and Commissions, the organization of State workmen's compensation officials, "there can be little doubt that most workmen's compensation jurisdictions today provide totally inadequate protec tion for workers against radiation hazards." The record of continued inaction by the States has made it evident that the only means of gaining necessary compensation protection for the Nation's radiation workers is through Federal legislation. There is already a Federal safety program, with Federal standards and a Federal licensing system, governing radiation uses. And there is Federal insurance for nuclear reactors providing financial protection to industry and to the members of the public affected in the event of an atomic accident. A companion measure is now needed to provide corresponding Federal action to provide workmen's compensation for the needs of injured workmen. The Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy has announced hearings early in this session on radiation hazards and workmen's compensation. We urge that it act to have the Congress (1) reaffirm and reinforce the system of Federal responsibility for radiation hazard control and (2) adopt a Federal program of workmen's compensation protection for workers subject to radiation hazards. The appropriate Federal agencies with experience in the health, safety, and compensation fields should be given the full authority and resources to develop and enforce effective radiation control and workmen's compensation programs in all industries involving atomic materials. Representative HOLIFIELD. Did you wish this letter from Mr. Sigal to Chairman Anderson also inserted in the record? Mr. GOODMAN. Yes, sir; if you will, please. Representative HOLIFIELD. It will be accepted. (The letter referred to follows:) Hon CLINTON P. ANDERSON, INDUSTRIAL UNION DEPARTMENT, AFL-CIO, Chairman, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: On April 23, 1959, a report was issued by the National Committee for Radiation Protection setting forth its latest revisions of the maximum permissible concentrations of radioactive materials in the human body and in air and water. These revisions gravely disturb us. They raise basic questions not only of scientific method, but of governmental procedure as well. While the NCRP has no governmental or official status, its recommendations are relied upon by Government agencies as well as private organizations. You will recall that a short time ago questions were raised in testimony before you regarding the procedures followed by NCRP, and the validity of the standards which they have The latest action of NCRP again brings this problem to the fore. set. The recommendations of NCRP purport to be based on a 5-year study. The inference certainly is that sufficient information has been collected to warrant reliable scientific conclusions necessitating the revision of the previous standards. The fact of the matter appears to be, however, that the Committee does not have adequate information on which to base its conclusions. Its own statement declares: "When we can measure more accurately the body burden of radioisotopes in the various body organs, we will have advanced further toward a practical solution of the problem.' This appears to us to be a confession that criteria and knowledge do not now exist by which reliable maximum permissible concentrations in the human body can be set. Under these circumstances it appears to be a highly dangerous business to double the limits for occupational exposure. We are constrained to suspect that issuance of these revisions at this time, following wide public concern over the extent and speed of radioactive fallout, is not a mere coincidence. If our suspicions are justified, the procedures of this Committee, to say the least, are open to question. In the past, the method of calculating the maximum permissible limit for each radioisotope was described by Dr. K. Z. Morgan as follows: "For the most part these values are based on the assumption that the permissible amount of a radioisotope in the body is one which will result in the accumulation of the radioisotope in the critical body organ, such that the critical organ will be exposed at a rate of 0.3 rems per week." In 1957, the permissible exposure rate was reduced to 0.1 rem per week. If the Committee were consistent, it should then have recalculated the permissible 42561 0-59-31 |