health department in Albany, and they have a regular exchange of information. Representative HOLIFIELD. Do you have any kind of a monthly publication or bulletin that goes out to the local bodies? Mr. TOWNSEND. I am not aware of the publication of a periodical, although there may be. But I am quite sure, because I have had a few occasions to run into this, that there is very close liaison between these county and district health officers and the health department in Albany. Representative HOLIFIELD. Could you look at some test cases and notify the committee by letter as to what the lag time has been between AEC notification of the State and the notification by the State to the local city of a new radioactive source being licensed within a city? Mr. TOWNSEND. Yes, I will. Representative HOLIFIELD. With that, we might get some idea as to this lag time. Also, whether you think the person who applies for atomic material with the AEC should be required by the AEC, as one of the points in granting this permit, to have served notice on his local city or county, or even the State, that he plans to use this material. Mr. TOWNSEND. There is not such a requirement as that now, no. Representative HOLIFIELD. You will understand our interest in this, in view of testimony we had last year from firemen. I think there was a representative of a firemen's group saying that the fire department should know where this material is, so in case of a fire, when they rush in and are confronted with dangerous material, the handling of it, or in the guarding of it or quarantining of it, that they should know about this. Mr. TOWNSEND. This notification of fire departments is particularly well developed within the city of New York. The health department there is the agency that requires the registration of sources, and they keep the fire department very fully informed. I believe that is probably a model situation in this regard. (The following letter was subsequently received from Mr. Townsend :) STATE OF NEW YORK, Hon. CHET HOLIFIELD, Chairman, Subcommittee on Radiation, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Congress of the United States, Washington, D.O. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF ATOMIC DEVELOPMENT, Albany, July 8, 1960. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE HOLIFIELD: During the roundtable discussion before the Radiation Subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, in which I participated on June 2, 1960, you asked me the following: "Could you look at some test cases and notify the committee by letter as to what the lag time has been between AEC notification of the State and the notification by the State to the local city of a new radioactive source being licensed within the city ***. Also whether you think the person who applies for atomic material with the AEC should be required by the AEC, as one of the points in granting this permit, to have served notice on his local city, or county, or even the State, that he plans to use this material." We have now looked into this and I can report that copies of licenses issued by the Atomic Energy Commission within New York State are received within 10 days to 2 weeks by the State department of health. These, in turn, are 1 reproduced and copies are forwarded by the State department of health to the State department of labor and all full-time city, county, and district health departments. A delay of up to 2 months in transmitting copies to local health departments and the State department of labor has occurred at times. I have been informed by the State department of health that it is expected that this time can be reduced and that henceforward distribution within the State can take place within a 2-week period. We also now have under consideration within the State the possibility of the State office of atomic development assuming this informational function. With regard to your second question, it is our belief that it would be desirable for the Atomic Energy Commission to require that its licensees comply with all applicable State or local regulations, which in many cases impose a registration requirement. We do not believe that a requirement by the Commission that its licensees notify State and local officials would be an effective substitute for notification of the State directly by the Commission itself. As you know, this State is in the process of negotiating a regulatory agreement with the Atomic Energy Commission and we are presently inclined to feel that a revision of present notification procedures might appropriately await completion of this agreement inasmuch as at that time the circumstances affecting notification procedures will presumably be somewhat different than they are now. Sincerely yours, OLIVER TOWNSEND, Director. Representative HOLIFIELD. Are there any questions from the Congressmen? Are there any further matters? Professor CAVERS. I would like, if I might, to put a question to Mr. Townsend. Representative HOLIFIELD. Dean Cavers. Professor CAVERS. In the actual operation of these three codes, have there been enforcement proceedings brought against violators of the labor or health or city codes? Mr. TOWNSEND. No. There is authority to provide enforcement proceedings, and the threat of it can take care of a situation. The State has never challenged the authority of the Federal Government over its own licenses within the State. Representative HOLIFIELD. What about that waste disposal case? Was there not such a case in New York, where there was some violation? Mr. TOWNSEND. I believe you are thinking of Connecticut in regard to waste disposal. Mr. RAMEY. A fellow had a little plant there in his backyard. Mr. TOWNSEND. You are thinking of the radium case at Mount Kisco. Mr. RAMEY. Yes. Mr. TOWNSEND. The uranium and radium corporation case? Mr. RAMEY. Right. Mr. TOWNSEND. This is not one of the byproducts. Professor CAVERS. No. I was thinking of the radioisotope situation. Mr. TOWNSEND. Regarding the Mount Kisco case, I am not familiar with the details of that. Radium is outside of the jurisdiction of the State atomic energy law. It also occurred before the law was passed, and before our agency came into existence. Representative HOLIFIELD. Dr. Selove. Dr. SELOVE. While Dr. Chadwick is here, I wonder if I might just ask him a question for information. I see this staff report issued by the FRC explicitly states it is an interim report and some sources of radiation are not considered, such as internal emitters. There have been a few rather widespread sources of radiation that have frequently been discussed, such as from wristwatches or from television sets. I wonder if the FRC has any plans for studying and making any recommendations on such sources. Dr. CHADWICK. I think, if you will refer to the testimony of the FRC of last week, you will note that a group is currently at work on the problem of internal emitters. This is the temporary staff, No. 2, that was referred to by the chairman a few moments ago. On the matter of television sets, the Council has no specific project in that area. Representative HOLIFIELD. Are there any further comments, gen tlemen? Representative HOSMER. I would like to ask a question. Representative HOSMER. I suppose I should ask this of Dr. Williams. You are on the NCRP, are you not? Dr. WILLIAMS. No. Representative HOSMER. Are any of you on the NCRP? You are, are you not, Mr. Parker? We have heard nothing but good of that body and praise for its work and the standards it puts out. We have also heard that what the Federal Radiation Council did was more or less a carbon copy of what the NCRP did. We have heard also a great deal of criticism of the Federal Radiation Council for not going outside and getting advice from a lot of additional people to establish this guide. I would like to know what the procedure is as used by NCRP in arriving at its commendable standards, suggestions, or whatever they are called. Mr. PARKER. I think, Mr. Hosmer, that can be best characterized as a slow struggle within separate subcommittees normally containing some seven members who are selected as representing the various aspects of the problem component to be tackled. These exchanges of opinion, supplemented outside the committee by exchange of each man with his professional colleagues, gradually crystallize something approaching a consensus of opinion, which is then written up by the chairman. It has always been true that the chairman carries the main load. One man has to write up the document. Two examples of excellent ones mentioned frequently in these hearings, were prepared, respectively, by Dr. Failla and Dr. K. Z. Morgan. These are then circulated informally, usually to chairmen of all the other committees and I believe there are now somewhere between 14 and 18and others likely to have constructive comments. They finally have the approval of the main committee. Representative HOSMER. Are there, among the representatives, doctors, lawyers, ministers, labor, and so forth, on the committee? Mr. PARKER. I think the statements that have appeared in the last 2 weeks, sir, show that people are speaking in all this work as individuals knowledgeable in some separate activity, and are not in the normal sense representing any organization. Representative HOSMER. Well, they are technical people. Mr. PARKER. They are technical people. There was one specific variation from the physical science technical people and the biological science, if you will, in that subcommittee which heretofore had attempted to put out some assistance in terms of a model code. I believe Mr. Adams said that four lawyers were associated with that particular one. Representative HOSMER. That was for drafting purposes; is that right? Mr. PARKER. I believe they worked together in composing the attempted new code that was referred to. But this is the exception. Representative HOSMER. Then, NCRP and FRC go about their business in essentially the same manner; is that a fair statement? Mr. PARKER. I could not speak to that point. I could perhaps have said that FRC could have obtained a going package from NCRP in terms of a recommended set of guides. Representative HOSMER. You are a difficult witness. When you do not like my question, you answer one you would rather have me ask. Mr. PARKER. Excuse me. I did not intend to evade the question, sir. Perhaps, if you would restate it, I could do better. Representative HOSMER. What I was trying to get at was that from what I have heard, I gather that the way that the two bodies go about their work and the kind of people that they are made up of, are pretty. similar of a similar nature. Mr. PARKER. I cannot speak for how FRC goes about its work, because this was not a matter that was available to use for examination. Representative HOSMER. Well, you have been around here for several days and have gotten pretty good ideas about how the Federal Council went about its work, have you not? You heard about the peeling off of the various layers and getting down to the working group, and the working group going out and talking with people; and it is about the same as you apparently describe as the way NCRP goes about it, except that your group is one of subcommittees. Mr. PARKER. No, sir; there is a very fundamental difference. I was one of the men listed who was approached by the temporary staff. Dr. Failla and I spent a day with them. If this kind of thing takes place in NCRP or NAS circles, there is full opportunity for conversation both ways. This is a radically different process, as far as the technical man is concerned, from saying his piece to a group of which presumably studies it and passes on some part of it to another group, which passes it on to yet another group. This is not a normal process of scientific exchange of opinion. Representative HOSMER. Federal Council people use you as more or less a source of information, then, rather than as an adviser; is that right? Mr. PARKER. I do not know whether they use me or not, sir. I presented myself for 1 day's conversation. Representative HOSMER. Well, somebody listened to you, I suppose. Mr. PARKER. That was the impression at the time. But whether that is reflected in the resulting product is another issue. This does not happen in NCRP. Everyone that has been consulted has had opportunity to be asked whether the product reflects his views. Representative HOSMER. I suppose, then, you were at a different level in the category of your interchange of information with the Council. Mr. PARKER. Mr. Hosmer, I would suggest that the committee send a letter to each of the men listed as having consulted with the tem porary staff group and ask them if they feel that that is a formal avenue of technical consultation. That would be a better answer than that of only one man here. Representative HOSMER. I take it that you do not exactly approve of the way FRC operates. Mr. PARKER. I suggest, sir, that there is one way to frustrate scientists, and that is and I speak from experience of doing this to people, perhaps if some technical work is prepared and then it is analyzed through three administrative channels, the professional at the bottom end of that chain does not want to have his name connected with it. Representative HOSMER. Well, we have another way to frustrate scientists, too; not to give them enough money for their projects. We have a lot of frustrated scientists in this country. Thank you, Mr. Parker. (The statement subsequently submitted by Dr. Parker follows:) On Tuesday, June 2, during the roundtable on topic IV, Representative Hosmer questioned me in considerable detail on the mode of operation of NCRP. The questioning continued to analyze some differences in the mode of operation of the Federal Radiation Council and NCRP with respect to scientific interchange. It will be clear that the view expressed in this section were strictly personal opinions. These responses referred only to what seemed to be a factual existing difference in method of operation without necessarily suggesting that the two bodies should in fact operate in the same manner. My response to Mr. Hosmer's suggestion that I do not exactly approve of the way FRC operates was not well chosen and can easily be misinterpreted as implying acquiescence with that suggestion. It is my feeling that it was so misinterpreted in the question and answer period while Secretary Flemming was a witnesses on the following day. Secretary Flemming's comment that there is a practical limit to the amount of exchange that can take place in any particular case was very much to the point. In addition, I can perhaps clarify my position by stating that I would hope to see even less duplication of effort between these two important bodies in the future, and hence even less reason to look for identity of mode of working. Ideally, I would like to see NCRP adhere more closely to a scientific posture and FRC more closely to an administrative posture. The peculiar problems of radiation protection today hinge largely on the inabality to make such a clear-cut separation. Representative HOLIFIELD. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your participation in the panel and for appearing here as witnesses. It has been very helpful. We will reconvene in the morning at 10 o'clock in this room. We hope to have Secretary Flemming as our leadoff witness, and then we will have public witnesses following. It may not be possible for Secretary Flemming to appear, and if he is not able to appear, because of his involvement as a witness in another committee, we will start with the public list of witnesses. We will have Dr. Seymour Yale and Dr. George Paffenbarger from the American Dental Society, Mr. Andrew Biemiller from the AFL-CIO, Mr. Harold Sandbank from the American Municipal Association, and representatives from the Sane Nuclear Policy Committee, the Health Physics Society, the Consumers Union, and the Scientists' Committee for Radiation Information of New York. This will give the public a chance to comment on the testimony we have had. The meeting stands adjourned. (Whereupon, at 4:05 p.m., a recess was taken until Friday, June 3, 1960, at 10 a.m.) |