the radioactive gas radon in some mines. Chronic exposure to radon is closely linked to occurrence of lung cancer among uranium and radium miners. Preventing such exposure is an exercise both in dealing with undesirable effects of a new technology and in creating further technology to accomplish a cure.

Regulation of radium mines in the United States was left with the States by the Atomic Energy Acts of 1946 and 1954. Until 1967 the role of the AEC and the Public Health Service, among Federal agencies, was to assist and encourage the States to adopt standards, adequate monitoring practices, and recordkeeping and ventilation. By 1967 the Public Health Service knew of 98 lung cancer fatalities among uranium miners and estimated that as many as 529 deaths due to lung cancer may occur, although PHS noted this estimate could not be scientifically substantiated.

On May 5, 1967, Secretary of Labor Willard Wirtz issued an order setting certain standards to be applied to uranium mines under the Public Contracts Act,125 and subsequently amended it on June 10, 1967.12

On May 9, the Subcommittee on Research, Development, and Radiation of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy opened 11 days of hearings, ending on August 10, 1967. Chairman Price said that the needed action of setting limits on mining exposure and enforcing them was taking too long, and that the subcommittee wished to find out what determination had been made by the Federal Radiation Council, including the setting of standards. The subcommittee also reviewed the May 5 action of the Secretary of Labor and relevant programs of Federal agencies which together with State governments have responsibilities for protecting miners from this hazard.

Senator Pastore, chairman of the Joint Committee, in publishing the hearings 127 remarked that doubtless the record constituted the "*** most comprehensive collection of information ever amassed concerning the exposure of human beings to radiation incident to the mining of uranium," and that the information was directly relevant to other problems as well.12

While the hearings were in progress, the Federal Radiation Council transmitted to the President findings and recommendations for the guidance of the Federal agencies for the radiation protection activities for underground uranium mining. The President approved these recommendations on July 27, 1967.129 In addition to recommending an exposure limit, the Council urged the Federal agencies to cooperate fully with the States and the uranium mining industry in realistic and coordinated efforts to deal with the problem.130 The Council noted that

125 Title 41, Code of Federal Regulations, "Pt. 50-204: Safety and Health Standards for Federal Supply Contracts," 32 F.R. 7022-3, May 9, 1967. 126 32 F.R. 8412-3, June 13, 1967.

127 "Radiation Exposure of Uranium Miners" hearings before the Subcommittee on Research, Development, and Radiation of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 90th Cong., 1st sess., 1967, Pts. 1 and 2, 1373 pages.

128 Ibid., p. iii.

129 32 F.R. 11183, Aug. 1, 1967. (See also "Radiation Protection Guidance for Federal agencies." Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, Aug. 7, 1967, vol. 3, No. 31, pp. 1074-1076.) 130 The Council recommended realistic and coordinated programs in the following areas: 1. The development of technology directed to the control and more reliable estimates of individual exposures to radon daughters.

2. The registration and compilation of individual exposure records.

3. Research on casual relationships involving varying exposure to radon daughters and the subsequent development of disability.

4. Research and development directed toward better mining practices.

5. Development of adequate compensation procedures.

6. Educational opportunities and training programs wherever needed.

in about a year it intends to review its guidance for radiation protection in uranium mining.

13. RELIABLE ELECTRICAL POWER

Major power failures during recent years have shown how much of the country has become almost totally reliant on electric power and on the systems that carry it to homes, offices, factories, farms. Electricity in the United States is supplied by more than 3,000 separately owned systems-public, private, and cooperative. Electric power consumption in this country is doubling every decade.

Against this background, the President in his message on protecting the American consumer called for greater coordination among the various utilities "** **to reap the benefits of reliability and economy inherent in huge generating units and extra-high-voltage transmission lines," and said that he would recommend legislation to this end.131 The year 1967 also brought with it a major report from the Federal Power Commission on electric power reliability, and proposals for legislation to insure the desired reliability.

(a) The Federal Power Commission Report on the Power Failure of

1965

Following the Northeast power blackout of November 9 to 10, 1965, the President instructed the Federal Power Commission to report on the power failure. The FPC submitted an initial analysis on December 6, 1965, and issued its final report on July 19, 1967.132 This final report noted a need for more extensive research and development to advance power technology, “* * * especially in areas where extrapolation of present designs and practices is likely to be inadequate to meet future needs." 133 Such research included extra-high-voltage transmission up to 1,500 kilovolts, improvement of switchgear, improved sensing devices, and better communications for computer control of power systems, further advancement of breeder reactors for nuclear powerplants, and development of underground cables for extra high voltages.

The 34 specific FPC recommendations covered coordination of power company actions, interconnected system planning, operating and maintenance practices, criteria and standards, defense and emergency preparedness, manufacturing and testing responsibilities, the need for technical proficiency, and exchange of information on power systems practices with other countries. In particular, the FPC found facilities are needed in the United States for more extensive testing of EHV equipment.

(b) The Electric Power Reliability Act of 1967

The President's message on consumer protection referred to recent electrical power failures, and emphasized that electrical power systems must be carefully planned, coordinated, and strengthened to protect the customers against cascading power failures. On June 8, 1967, the Federal Power Commission sent to the Congress a draft

131 "Protecting the American Consumer." loc. cit., p. 271.

132 U.S. Federal Power Commission. "Prevention of Power Failures: An Analysis and Recommendations Pertaining to the Northeast Failure and the Reliability of U.S. Power Systems." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967, 3 volumes. 133 Ibid., p. 72.

bill, the proposed Electric Power Reliability Act, which was introduced as S. 1934. The proposed legislation (1) called for regional planning organizations to insure that plans for bulk power facilities are adequate, (2) authorized the Federal Power Commission to establish planning and operating standards to enhance reliability, (3) provided for the FPC to require interconnections between bulk power generating utilities. It would accomplish the purposes of bills S. 3136, S. 2139, and S. 2140 of the 89th Congress.

On August 22, 1967, Senator Magnuson as chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, opened hearings on S. 1934 which, in addition to witnesses from Federal agencies, brought to Washington representatives of electrical utilities from the Northwest United States. 134 135 The hearings are a notable example of the technical detail and complexity of issues that Congress has to consider in legislation for regulation of applications of technology. In this instance, the problem arose from the occurrences of large power failures that spread through electrical transmission lines from one utility to another. As the problem was summarized in the testimony:

The advent of extra-high-voltage transmission permits the exportation of trouble as well as the importation of assistance. Also, larger and larger concentrations of generating capacity add another and most difficult aspect to the problem of reliability. The larger the capacity of the transmission line or generating plant, the greater the impact can be if a forced outage of either should occur. The joining of more and more systems together with interties tends to reduce the frequency with which small service outages will occur at the price of increasing the extent of those outages that do occur. It tends to trade many small failures for a few whoppers. The Northeast power failure was a classic example of the problem.

There is a danger of risking reliability if the headlong pursuit of economies of large scale is not tempered with an orderly evolution of practices and technology which can control the unintended effects of extra-large equipment on the systems.

136

The problem before the Congress is how to reduce the chances of large, cascading power failures, and to do this at a time when high capacity transmission lines are being used more and more-with strong encouragement from the Federal Power Commission and other Federal agencies to realize the economies of large scale.

Related to S. 1934 is S. 683, a bill to give the Federal Power Commission the authority for antitrust review of contracts for interconnection, pooling, or coordination of power systems. In opening a hearing on S. 683 137 on February 13, 1967, Chairman Magnuson of the Senate Commerce Committee called attention again to the theory which holds that the cheapest electricity is produced by the largest possible generating plants. "To the extent that antitrust standards as opposed to the larger public interest and benefit standard puts such plants and agreements in doubt, I think all of us would agree that the consumer might suffer." Giving recognition to new technology and the economies of scale argument, the bill proposed a broader standard than the strict, historical antitrust standard. The standard proposed in S. 683 seeks to "encourage voluntary interconnection and coordination in the interest of economy and dependability."

134 "Electric Power Reliability." Hearings before the Senate Committee on Commerce, 90th Cong., first sess., 1967, 189 pages. 13 "Electric Power Reliability." Hearings before the Senate Committee on Commerce, 90th Cong., first sess., 1967, pt. II, pp. 191-480.

130 "Electric Power Reliability," op. cit., pt. II, p. 216.

137 "Amendment to Federal Power Act (Anti-Trust Review)." Hearing before the Senate Commerce Committee, 90th Cong., first sess., 1967, 53 pages.

92-026-68- -5

(c) The Mid-Atlantic Power Failure of June 5, 1967

During hearings of the Senate Commerce Committee on the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission, there occurred, on June 5, 1967, a widespread power failure that affected the entire state of New Jersey, eastern and southeastern Pennsylvania, and part of the Delaware-Maryland Peninsula. The committee called a hearing on the following day, June 6, and asked detailed questions of the Federal Power Commission and its staff about the causes of the failure and measures taken to restore power.'

138

14. SAFEGUARDING THE NATION'S ENVIRONMENT

The effects of the wastes from our scientific and technological economy upon the Nation's air, waters, and land and measures to counter the effects have occupied much time and attention of Congress and the executive branch. The year 1967 proved no exception. Presidential messages, a major report from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the proposed legislation for aircraft noise control, enactment of the Air Quality Act of 1967, regulation of air pollution in the District of Columbia, and reports on electric powered vehicles as a remedy for some pollution mark the highlights of the efforts made in the first session of the 90th Congress to safeguard the environment. (a) A DHEW Task Force Report

On November 1, 1966, John W. Gardner, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, created a Task Force on Environmental Health and Related Problems and asked it to study and make recommendations on the Department's responsibility for protecting man from threats to his health and welfare as a result of environmental damage. Chaired by Ron M. Linton,139 the task force made its report in June 1967.140 The findings and recommendations raised many issues. of public policy for science.

Two basic conclusions of the task force underlie its 34 principal recommendations which, if adopted, could cost $2.5 billion over 5 years. First, the environmental contamination that man creates man can correct, and the Nation's industrial and technological genius needs to be brought to bear on this problem. Second, action cannot be delayed until all the answers or better answers are available. Action must be taken on the knowledge and technical capability now available while better answers are being sought.14

141

According to the task force, DHEW should have “*** primary responsibility for protecting Americans from all the threats to their environment."142 The Department should approach environmental

138 "Mid-Atlantic Power Failure of June 5, 1967." Hearings before the Senate Committee on Commerce, 90th Cong., first sess., 1967, 31 pages.

139 Members of the task force included: Ron M. Linton, Chairman, Urban America, Inc., Washington, D.C.; Samuel Lenher, E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.; Anne Draper, AFL-CIO Research Department; Harold L. Sheppard. Ph. D.. W. E. Upjohn, Institute for Employment Research, Washington, D.C.; John L. Hanlon, M.D., city of Detroit and Wayne County. Mich. and Raymond R. Tucker, Washington University.

140 U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. "A Strategy for a Livable Environment." A report to the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare by the Task Force on Environmental Health and Related Problems, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, June 1967.

141 Ibid., p. vi.

142 Ibid., p. x.

health problems from two directions: first, to act upon the most serious existing problems; second, to create an environmental protection system which can identify emerging environmental hazards and prevent them from getting out of hand.

Ten action goals of the highest priority were proposed for the first approach. These goals included measures for air pollution, water quality, waste disposal, urban contamination, population, toxic materials, consumer protection, radiation hazards, occupational illness and physical and mental health standards for the urban environment.143

Concerning environmental protection, the task force recommendations extended to surveillance and warning systems, criteria for hazards, developing the requisite technologies, and obtaining compliance with criteria. Briefly summarized, the recommendations were that DHEW

(1) establish a surveillance and warning program to identify current and potential environmental problems and determine their effect on man;

(2) establish an environmental design program which will establish criteria and dual-level standards for individual hazards and combinations of hazards;

(3) establish a technological development program using contracts with industry in conjunction with departmental activities and grants to institutions; and

(4) establish an intergovernmental compliance program using Federal grants in aid, free of formula and allocation restrictions, in conjunction with Federal technical assistance teams.111

143 The 10 action goals recommended were:

1. An air quality restoration effort to initiate by 1970, in 75 interstate areas, abatement plans to reduce plant stack emissions by 90 percent, and to establish national standards to reduce vehicle exhaust emissions by 90 percent from 1967 levels through enforcement and a technological development program to provide the equipment necessary to meet the standards.

2. A water quality effort by 1970 to test all existing and proposed public drinking water supply systems and produce meaningful public drinking water standards which, through an enforcement program, will ensure health-approved drinking water for 100 percent of the Nation's public systems.

3. A waste disposal effort to provide, by 1973, a grant-in-aid program for solid waste disposal at the local level; developmental research program to integrate solid and liquid waste disposal and air quality control; and for the disposal of nuclear wastes. 4. A population research effort to determine by 1968 the effects of population trends on environmental protection goals and programs as part of the basis for setting departmental objectives with respect to family planning and population dynamics.

5. An urban improvement effort to develop by 1973, through research, basic data sufficient to establish human levels of tolerance for crowding, congestion, noise, odor, and specific human endurance data for general stress and accident threats, including traffic, home, and recreation accidents.

6. A materials, trace metals, and chemicals control effort to establish, by 1970, human safety levels for synthetic materials, trace metals, and chemicals currently in use, and prohibit after 1970 general use of any new synthetic material, trace metal, or chemical until approved by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

7. A consumer protection effort which, by 1970, will initiate a comprehensive program for the identification of health and safety hazards associated with the use of appliances, clothing, food, hazardous substances, and other consumer products and for the control of such products which fail to meet consumer protection standards established by the Department.

8. A radiation control effort which, by 1970, through developmental research and enforcement, adequately protects workers and the public from harmful radiation levels. 9. An occupational disease and safety protection effort to extend, by 1970, preventive services to 100 percent of the employed population at its work place.

10. A governmental compliance effort which, by 1969, through effective relations with local, State, and Federal governments, will insure that criteria and standards for physical and mental health for housing, urban development, and transportation will be available and used by the Federal agencies administering these programs. Ibid., pp. xvi, xvii.

144 Ibid., p. xviii.