level of concentration based on that reduced exposure standard. They failed to do this. The release of the Committee fails to state, except in the most general terms, the nature of the information on which it has based its revisions. It is our understanding that this information is not now available to the scientific community. In the light of the extreme importance of this whole problem, I urge the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy to make a thorough investigation at the earliest possible moment into the methods by which the NCRP arrived at its conclusions. We urge the Committee to demand that Dr. Lauriston Taylor present to your committee for publication the information upon which the NCRP revisions were made. We also urge your committee to examine the problem of whether or not the NCRP, a private organization, should provide the standards by which Government agencies determine the possible limits of radiation exposure. In our view it is imperative that such a group should be under governmental direction. Sincerely yours, BENJAMIN C. SIGAL, Chairman, IUD Atomic Energy Technical Committee. Mr. GOODMAN. I have made my basic recommendations. I hope the committee will seriously consider the interests of the workers in the industry, though they had only a few of the witnesses in this current set of hearings before you. Thank you very much. Representative DURHAM. I think the committee at all times has had great concern about that. That is the one reason we sit here day after day after day trying to fathom this thing. Mr. GOODMAN. I think it is the most hard-working committee in Congress. I believe if the committee were in position to influence the executive arm of Government more, there would be even more progress in the atomic field than there has been. On the other hand, there are serious problems regarding occupational radiation hazards and, though the committee is busy, the workers in the industry feel that the interests of the workers in the plants should not be a secondary matter to the desire of the scientists, in my opinion, to find a more precise basis upon which they can make their recomendations. Representative HOLIFIELD. Has the committee or any of its subcommittees ever refused to hear testimony from representatives of the workers when requested? Mr. GOODMAN. No, sir. You have been very generous. Representative HOLIFIELD. If there are no further questions, the committee will be adjourned. (Additional statements that were furnished for the record follow :) STATE OF MINNESOTA, EXECUTIVE OFFICE, Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman Joint Committee on Atomic Energy DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: By a letter of February 11, 1959, you informed me of the plans of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy to consider certain questions in the atomic energy field of mutual interest both to Federal and State Governments. You also advised regarding certain proposed public hearings which were to cover an extensive period of time and numerous subjects. In the State of Minnesota I have had an advisory committee consisting of some two dozen specially qualified individuals. This group has done a great deal of work both in the investigation of various aspects of atomic energy and radiation and in the formulation of reports and recommendations. However, it has been a voluntary group, and we have neither a full-time staff nor appro priations from which to pay expenses for this group. Consequently, it is not practical for us to have anyone attempt to follow the course of your hearings in any detail, and it will be difficult for us to offer testimony in person. Nevertheless, there is at least one subject that seems to me to be of sufficient interest and importance to justify comment. Therefore, I request that you. accept this letter as a statement of my position, and consider it as representing the position of my administration of the government of the State of Minnesota. I am advised that the suggestion may be made that Congress should attempt to preempt the entire field of atomic energy and radiation so as to preclude action by the State governments within this area. It appears to me that this would be unsound and unwise for a number of reasons. To begin with, the constitutional basis of Federal authority over atomic energy appears to be the war power of Congress. It seems to me that this is a tenuous basis for extending control and regulation over as wide and important a field as that of peacetime utilization of atomic energy. Beyond this, it is clear even to a layman that within this field there are vast voids of knowledge. Even as to areas in which we think we know, there are disagreements between equally eminent and responsible scientists. Thus, it seems particularly appropriate that there should be some variety of viewpoint and approach in dealing with problems as to which we know so little, and as to which experimentation may be so important. Finally, it seems to me that no case whatever can be made out for any need for Federal preemption in this field. It is, of course, obvious that no State can or should modify any requirement of Federal law or regulation so as to permit a more hazardous or less safe installation or utilization of atomic energy or radiation sources. However, no reason appears why States should not be permitted to establish more rigorous or careful standards for installations by private parties within their own jurisdictions than the Federal Government has seen fit to establish. If a State or its representatives feel that particular safeguards are necessary or appropriate to protect its citizens, it seems to me it should be entitled to establish these. This is true in many less important fields, and I think it should be true in the field of atomic energy. It is obvious that I am suggesting only that the States be permitted concurrent jurisdiction to establish whatever safeguards relating to atomic energy installations or radiation sources or materials within their borders as they may deem proper. I do strongly urge that Congress should not adopt any legislation the purpose of which is to establish Federal preemption of this entire field. I think this would be unwise and potentially dangerous. There are many technical aspects to this question, and I am not personally competent to discuss all of them. However, I have had highly competent and qualified advisers, some of whom may be known to you, and they believe that this position is a proper and necessary one. I fully concur with this, and therefore repeat my urgent request to you that whatever legislation be passed by Congress in this field shall make it clear that the Congress intends to permit the States concurrent authority to act, and does not intend to preempt the field of regulation of atomic energy and radiation sources and materials. Sincerely yours, ORVILLE L. FREEMAN, Governor. CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, May 11, 1959. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, DEAR CHAIRMAN ANDERSON: Dr. Shields Warren of the Cancer Research Institute, New England Deaconess Hospital, Boston, Mass., would appreciate it if his statement with regard to the possible transfer from the Atomic Energy Commission to the Public Health Service of certain responsibilities resulting from atomic developments could be made a part of the records of your committee. His statement follows: "While there is no legislation as yet, there is an apparent move on the part of the U.S. Public Health Service to try to shift some of the responsibility for research in the biomedical field from the Atomic Energy Commission to the Public Health Service. The AEC has done an outstanding job over many years. The Public Health Service has at present neither the manpower nor the competence to do the type of work that the AEC is doing in the biomedical field, and I think it very important that the AEC appropriation for biology and medicine be continued and even expanded. I have long urged on the Public Health Service their exercising some degree of judgment with regard to radioactive fallout levels and other public health aspects of atomic medicine, but I think it is a sound responsibility for them to take." Yours sincerely, LAWRENCE CURTIS. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION, Mr. JAMES T. RAMEY, Executive Director, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, DEAR MR. RAMEY: I wish you would convey to Senator Anderson my thanks for allowing me the opportunity to review and supplement the statement sent him October 30, 1958, summarizing the activities of this agency with respect to Federal-State relationships in regulating radiation hazards. That letter, although it condenses our activities, furnishes a comprehensive outline of the procedures and activities and makes reference to documentation where the details and technical data may easily be found if needed by interested persons. It was believed that such concise presentation would avoid an unduly lengthy discussion and repetitive quotations, prove less complex to your committee, and at the same time provide ample explanatory advice. Since these facts were reported, a representative of the Commission was appointed to attend conferences of the International Atomic Energy Agency with the view to developing a set of international regulations adaptable to all means of transport, and this panel succeeded in drafting what appear to be complete and acceptable regulations for radioactive materials of low activity. Another group will study the substances having high activity, criticality, special materials, and heat transfer. When these are consolidated, all countries should be shipping, marking, and otherwise taking precautionary measures under a uniform system which will cause little, if any, interference with domestic practices, and may tend to improve them in some respects. When official documentation is received, the Commission will seek the views and recommendations of interested organizations and agencies so that all desirable suggestions will be given consideration in a worldwide plan and which may, in turn, be a useful pattern for State and Federal regulations in the future. My previous statement did not mention that the Commission is also represented on the interagency committees presently engaged in developing a plan for reporting and handling radiological incidents and the preparation of a plan of education dealing with such hazards and ways in which to avoid or minimize them, it being my belief that other agencies would cover the subject in detail. This planning incorporates a great deal of activity which will be of benefit to States and municipalities, and our staffs stationed throughout the country will undoubtedly be of material service in local areas both in promoting the educational campaigns and furnishing assistance in times of difficulty, depending upon the scopes of the program, and particularly where transportation by surface carriers is concerned. Other than the above-mentioned activities, there appears to be little I can add to supplement the data already published in your printed report for March 1959. Sincerely yours, KENNETH H. TUGGLE, Chairman. SACRAMENTO, CALIF., May 21, 1959. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: You are presently holding hearings on Federal-State relationships in the promotion and regulations of atomic energy use. like to submit the following recommendations for your consideration. I would I urge adoption of legislation to clarify Federal-State relationships with regard to the protection of public health and safety from radiation hazards incident to the possession or use of source byproduct and special nuclear materials. The California legislature has already expressed this request through passage of a joint resolution in April 1959. I urge adoption of legislation to insure State participation in the conduct of the AEC's regulatory program including legislation to insure State participation in AEC licensing proceedings and in AEC inspection. I urge that Federal agencies, particularly the AEC, and the U.S. Public Health Service, be directed to provide increased assistance to the States. Enlarged programs for training of professional and technical personnel to conduct radiation control programs and increased research into the effects of radiation and means of controlling exposure to radiation are vitally needed. EDMUND G. BROWN, Governor of California. ASSEMBLY JOINT RESOLUTION No. 15-RELATIVE TO ATOMIC ENERGY AND RADIATION PROTECTION Whereas California is a large user of atomic energy and radioactive materials in industry, medicine, agriculture, and research; and Whereas radiation, if improperly used, presents a potential hazard to the health and safety of the people of this State; and Whereas since the enactment of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 by the Federal Government there has been a considerable amount of uncertainty as to the effects of that act upon the State's traditional responsibilities in the field of health and safety; and Whereas there exists a questionable area of State jurisdiction regarding facilities and materials licensed by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission which are potentially dangerous to the health and safety of human beings; and Whereas while the Atomic Energy Commission has indicated upon many occasions its desire to cooperate with the States and its desire for State assistance in inspection and enforcement, neither Congress nor the Commission has clarified the relationship between the Federal Government, including the Atomic Energy Commission, and the States in this regard; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Assembly and Senate of the State of California, jointly, That the Legislature of the State of California respectfully memorializes the Congress of the United States to enact an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 which will clarify the jurisdiction of a State with regard to the protection of the health and safety of the public from radiation hazards incident to the possession or use of those facilities and materials licensed by the Atomic Energy Commission under the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; and be it further Resolved, That the chief clerk of the assembly be hereby directed to transmit copies of this resolution to the President and Vice President of the United States, to the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and to each Senator and Representative from California in the Congress of the United States. Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, GENERAL ELECTRIC CO., Schenectady, N.Y., June 4, 1959. DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: This letter sets forth my views on Federal-State relationships in the field of radiation protection. I would appreciate it if this letter were incorporated in the record of your recent hearings. The wide discussion of the question has made it clear that a reasonable accommodation of Federal and State interests and of the interests of the public and of industry can be developed within the following framework: 1. The States should play an increasing role in the regulation of radiation hazards, and an amendment of the Atomic Energy Act which would permit them to play such a role is both timely and desirable. 2. On the other hand, there are certain activities, notably the construction and operation of reactors, which should, for the time being, continue to be subject to Federal regulation. 3. Steps should be taken to enable the States to develop a competence in the areas of regulation reserved to the Federal Government so that with the passage of time, the States will be able to assume broader regulatory responsibilities. 4. The areas of Federal and State jurisdiction should be delineated as clearly as possible and conflicting or overlapping regulations should be avoided. The principal problem is how to define those areas which should be the responsibility of the States and those areas which should be reserved to the Federal Government. Here it would seem that the Federal Government should reserve jurisdiction on the basis of either of two criteria: 1. The activity is a matter of primary Federal concern; examples here are export or import of facilities or material and the conduct of operations in Government-owned facilities; or 2. The States have in general not yet acquired a technical competence to regulate the activity; the obvious example here is the construction and operation of reactors. The bill recommended by the Commission seems on the whole a reasonable approach to the problem of defining at this stage the areas where the States and the Federal Government may each operate most effectively. As time goes on the States should, of course, assume broader responsibilities than those presently contemplated. The provisions in H.R. 7214 for State participation in Commission licensing proceedings, for Commission-State cooperation in formulating standards and in performing inspections, and for Commission assistance to the States are all desirable as enabling the States to build up a capability to assume these broader responsibilities. H.R. 7214 provides for separated regulatory responsibilities on the part of the States and the Commission. This seems highly desirable. The point has been made many times that overlapping regulation would be quite burdensome to industry, and could be productive of delays, confusion, and conflict. It is also true that overlapping regulation can be ineffective and self-defeating. Clear lines of demarcation between the Federal and State jurisdictions are therefore essential. Very truly yours, FRANCIS K. MCCUNE, Vice President, Atomic Business Development Marketing Services. AMERICAN MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION, Hon. CLINTON P. ANDERSON, Chairman, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, DEAR SENATOR ANDERSON: While we had hoped to have a representative of the American Municipal Association testify personally before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy on May 22 on the subject of Federal-State relations, circumstances unfortunately made that impossible. Subsequent to the hearings, we were advised by the Committee staff that we would have to have the association's statement filed with the Committee on or before June 15 in order for it to be included as a part of the hearing record. Our statement on the subject of Federal-State relations in the field of atomic energy is enclosed. We greatly appreciate having this opportunity to place our views on record with the Committee. I am forwarding copies of this letter plus our statement to the members of your Committee. Sincerely yours, PATRICK HEALY, Jr., Executive Director. STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION The American Municipal Association is the national representative of ap proximately 13,000 municipal governments throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. It is organized on the basis of affiliation with State Leagues of Municipalities in 47 states, plus 225 direct member cities. Cities eligible for direct membership must have a population of 50,000 or more, be a State capital, or one of the State's 10 largest cities. |