Page images
PDF
EPUB

Representative HOLIFIELD. And you expect to advise the President as Chairman of the Federal Radiation Council on these matters! Secretary FLEMMING. That is correct.

Representative HOLIFIELD. And they should be considered collectively, as well as their individual problems?

Secretary FLEMMING. That is right. In other words, I do function in a dual capacity. Of course, some of these responsibilities are a special responsibility of our Department. In addition to that, the Council, as you very well put it, includes the whole area; and certainly we have the responsibility of advising the President in terms of the whole area.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Do you have any additional advisory functions as Chairman of the Federal Radiation Council, over and above the ones set forth in your HEW responsibility?

Secretary FLEMMING. It seems to me that I certainly have the responsibility of making sure of the fact that the views of the Council are placed before the President in an appropriate way.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Well, would medical X-rays let us say as an example, be a subject of consideration by the Federal Radiation Council!

Secretary FLEMMING. Certainly, that is a part of the problem that I am pretty sure we would have to get into. I assume that the working group has gotten into that particular problem in connection with its deliberations, and I am sure that the full-time staff group has. I am sure that Dr. Porterfield and his colleagues would do everything they could to make sure of the fact that this aspect of the total matter was taken into consideration.

Representative HOLIFIELD. No one of these agencies really has this overall responsibility of the total field of radiation.

Secretary FLEMMING. That is right.

Representative HOLIFIELD. I think it was generally thought by our committee that there was the need for this overall body which could look at the total problem, and not just in relation to the problem from one agency, be it the AEC or the HEW, and that they would form a clearinghouse and evaluation and collation job; and then, after that, the setting up of the guides would apply to the overall field. After all, radiation exposure is cumulative, and the body does not differentiate between X-ray radiation, let us say, and fallout.

Secretary FLEMMING. That is right.

Representative HOLIFIELD. That was part of the whole.

Secretary FLEMMING. We agree with you completely on this, and that is our concept of the responsibility.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Mr. Ramey?

Mr. RAMEY. In relation to the guide, I think the word that is used is something about as it applies to "peacetime" use of radiation, or "peacetime" operations. It occurs in several places, as I recall. If it is intended to apply broadly, would it not be desirable to define that a little more, if we discussed this, say, with the Department of Defense, as to whether the guide applies to the discharge of radioactivity from submarines, or whether it will apply, hopefully, some day to nuclear aircraft, or nuclear rockets, and so on?

Secretary FLEMMING. I do not know how Dr. Astin and Dr. Chadwick feel about this, but I would say that this question has been raised

enough times that I think it would be wise for us to define it further, just from a public relations point of view, so that people have a better understanding.

It was my understanding that has been raised here a number of times, and my own reaction always is that when you get questions coming at you in regard to a particular expression, you had better step back and explain it a little bit more fully than you have.

Representative HOLIFIELD. We believe it should be defined, also. We recognize that you are beginning a new service here in the FRC, and we do not expect it to be the full tree. We know we are planting the small seed or tree, to get started on it, but some of these questions have come up during the hearings.

Mr. Ramey.

Mr. RAMEY. One other function of the Council that was discussed several times was the matter of whether or not it should review each major new radiation use that might affect the population at large. Again, the example might be the resumption of atmospheric testing the matter of the nuclear rockets, or other possible contaminants.

Under the way the "Federal Radiation Guide" is prepared now, it might be construed that no agency would have any responsibility to come back to the Council until what it was regulating or what it was permitting would go over this maximum, the level that the guide has set up, whereas these new uses could ultimately eat away the difference between your current exposure levels and the levels set up by your standards.

Secretary FLEMMING. I certainly recognize and appreciate the importance of the problem that you have indentified there. It seems to me, however, that we can and should establish a reporting system that would alert us to the fact that consideration is being given to taking steps that might alter the overall picture. Then, when we are alerted, I feel that in some instances certainly we would have the responsibility of making a recommendation to the President, and the President would in turn, then, have to consider our recommendation along with other recommendations that he might receive from other bodies. Mr. RAMEY. I have one last question.

Yesterday Dean Cavers of the Harvard Law School raised a point as to the use of the phrase "radiation protection guide" as set forth in your No. 2 recommendation that the President adopted. The question whether this whole concept of setting up what used to be maximum permissible concentrations and calling them guides, and treating them not as maximums over which you cannot go any more, but as sort of check points as we discussed throughout the hearings, whether that might not have some rather profound implications for a regulatory program. He was the only lawyer on our panel, of course, and was looking at it from the standpoint of regulations. We thought it might be desirable to have some lawyers look into it a little more. Secretary FLEMMING. I do not think there was any part of our report that was given more consideration than this part where we included the recommendation for the use of the term "radiation protection guide." You may recall that in my statement of May 25, I had asked the working group to give me in a memorandum there understanding of the reasons that lie behind that particular recom

mendation. They pointed out that we were not recommending the use of the term "maximum permissible dose," and that there was more involved than just is arbitrary change of terminology.

We do feel that an important principle is involved. It has been our experience, certainly my experience in dealing with some of these specific problems as Secretary of HEW, that the term "maximum permissible dose" is often misunderstood. I think that the representatives of the NCRP and ICRP would agree that there have been some unfortunate and, from their point of view, inaccurate connotations associated with the use of the term.

We feel that the term "radiation protection guide," with its definition, more accurately represents the significance of numerical values in radiation protection programs. This is something I have come to understand and believe, that because of the nature of radiation effects and particularly the relationships between radiation dose and biological effect, there can be no single permissible or acceptable level of exposure without regard to the reason for permitting the exposure. Any numerical value is appropriate only for the circumstance for which it was developed. There can and should be different radiation protection guides with different numerical values, depending upon the circumstances. We feel that the specific radiation protection guides promulgated by the President by approval of the recommendations contained in the memorandum from the Council are appropriated under present conditions.

Really, the objection that the dean made is the very thing that we were trying to avoid here in this particular instance. I think in the long run that it will promote a better public understanding of the nature of the problem.

Mr. RAMEY. I do not think he was objecting. I think he was just pointing out this change in understanding.

Secretary FLEMMING. I see.

Mr. RAMEY. I think he did raise the question then, if you use these numbers as a check point and not as a maximum, then you are going to have to have some criteria to decide on where you go over, and there are going to have to be some more rules or some basis for deciding whether you go twice as much or one and a quarter times as much.

Secretary FLEMMING. But, of course, this is the purpose of the activity that the Council has now engaged in, and to some extent this will be included in our next report to the President. It is also the reason for underlining the fact to the various departments and agencies that they have to look at each specific situation and evaluate the evidence.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Mr. Secretary, I think you will find, if you do have the time to go over our hearings, that we have explored this matter quite comprehensively. We feel that there have been some suggestions and criticisms which I know Dr. Chadwick is aware of, and that will undoubtedly be taken into account in setting up further duties for your Council. We felt, when we made the Advisory Committee statutory, that there was a very important function here that needed to be filled. While we are not advocating the building up of a superbureaucracy or a duplicating organization, we certainly feel that Dr. Chadwick should have an adequate staff and access to

competent people, in order to do this job well, so that possibly a year from today, when we call Dr. Chadwick and maybe yourself before us to give us a further report on this, we will see some of these matters taken care of.

Secretary FLEMMING. Mr. Chairman, may I say that I personally appreciate the time that the committee has given to this particular aspect of our total responsibility. I will request Dr. Chadwick to identify the issues that have been raised here and put those issues on the agenda for the next meeting of the Council so that we will, I can assure you, give consideration to the various points of view that have been expressed.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Thank you very much.

Are there any questions?

Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary, for appearing before us. We know it has been at some inconvenience to yourself, but we feel that we have wrapped up a lot of these points; and we wish nothing but the best for the FRC.

Secretary FLEMMING. Thank you, sir. We appreciate it very much. Representative HOLIFIELD. The meeting is adjourned until 2 o'clock, at which time we will have further public witnesses.

(Whereupon, the hearing adjourned at 12:35 p.m., to reconvene at 2 p.m. the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

(The subcommittee reconvened at 2 p.m., upon the expiration of the recess.)

Representative HOSMER. The special subcommittee will come to

order.

In this final session our first witness will be Mr. Andrew J. Biemiller, representing the CIO-AFL, a former colleague of ours.

We are glad to have you here.

STATEMENT OF ANDREW J. BIEMILLER,1 DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATION, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR AND CONGRESS OF INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. BIEMILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, my name is Andrew J. Biemiller. I am director of the department of legislation, American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.

I am also chairman of the AFL-CIO staff subcommittee on atomic energy and natural resources.

I would like the record to show that Mr. James A. Brownlow, president of the metal trades department, AFL-CIO, concurs in the position taken in our testimony.

1 Born, Sandusky, Ohio, July 23, 1906. Graduated, Cornell University. 1926; also gradnate work, University of Pennsylvania, 1928-32. Member of faculty, Syracuse University, 1926-28. Member of faculty, University of Pennsylvania, 1929-31. Member of faculty, Bryn Mawr Summer School for Workers, 1930-31. Engaged in newspaper and labor educa tion work in Milwaukee, 1932-36. General organizer, Wisconsin State Federation of Labor, 1937-41. Member of Wisconsin Legislature, 1937-42; party floor leader. Special assistant to the War Production Board Vice Chairman for Labor Production, 1941-44. Member, House of Representatives, U.S. Congress, 1945-46 and 1949-50; specializing in health, social security, labor, and civil rights legislation. Political education director, Upholsterers' International Union, 1947-48. Labor consultant, Secretary of Interior. 1951-52. Member of the American Federation of Teachers. Legislative representative AFL, 1953-56. Chairman of AFL-CIO Staff Committee on Atomic Energy. Since Decem ber 1956, director, Department of Legislation, AFL-CIO.

The metal trades department is composed of and speaks for 20 international unions which account for two-thirds of all organized radiation workers in AEC facilities and many thousands of additional workers in plants operated by licensed users of AEC-owned fissionable material.

With me today are Mr. Paul Hutchings, research director, metal trades department, and Mr. Brooks Payne, atomic energy representative, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO; and Mr. George Taylor, economist with the research department of the AFL-CIO and secretary of the AFL-CIO staff subcommittee on atomic energy and natural resources.

Mr. Fred McGowan, international representative, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, chairman of our special subcommittee on radiation; Mr. Elwood Swisher, vice president, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, AFL-CIÓ; and Mr. Joseph Phillips, training coordinator, United Association of Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry, AFL-CIO, were unable for various reasons to attend these hearings.

All of these individuals have actively participated as members of a special subcommittee of our staff subcommittee, in work we have done during the past year on matters affecting occupational radiation health and safety.

They have likewise rendered valuable assistance in much of the preparation of my testimony which is being presented to you now.

CONCEPTS OF RADIATION SAFETY STANDARDS AND CRITERIA

The AFL-CIO regards these hearings as being of great potential importance to the thousands of our workers who man the frontlines in the advancing atomic age. The time has come, and these hearings signalize it, when broad, intelligent public debate can begin on the establishment and administration of radiation protection standards. This question has at last emerged from its classified and compartmentalized cocoon so that citizens can participate democratically in the economic, social, and political decisions that form the ingredients of a national policy acceptable to the public and in the public interest.

The AFL-CIO has accepted the general verdict of the scientific community that scientific knowledge thus far has not established a threshold of radiation dose below which exposure to ionizing radiation would have no effect on the human organism.

The whole question of standards and criteria to reduce to the minimum harmful effects of radiation exposure to workers and to all citizens must always be decided in favor of public health and safety. The time for decision comes when a given level of exposure is placed in balance against the benefits looked for as stemming from nuclear development.

The decision must be of itself a moral and social one. This logically follows because we are dealing with expected benefits which accrue to human beings and with the risks to which they are exposed in the process. Such issues can never be resolved on purely scientific grounds.

Our deep concern in this matter of such direct interest to workers in their day-to-day pursuits is that the concepts which are the founda

« PreviousContinue »