Representative HOSMER. That policing function--and I use that in a very broad sense-I think would disturb their actual primary function.

Mr. STAATS. I would agree.

Representative HOSMER. That is something that should be some place else.

Also, I suppose, there may be some matter of actual correlating of these various regulations so that they are not too diverse from each other. Two different agencies may impose regulations on the same persons, whether they are civilians or those in the Government, and it is a good policy not to have the regulations in conflict.

So those two things, at least, are present problems, where the other one you talked about, the rationing, is a future problem. Are these two present problems of enough significance to do anything about! You say they are not; that is my understanding.

Mr. STAATS. That is correct.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Mr. Ramey.

Mr. RAMEY. The point I made was not entirely in the future, rationing. I think the thing that has worried a number of people is that gradually you can build up to these things without quite appreciating them. It seems that there are certain increased uses that would be a proper subject when they come up: for example, a resumption of atmospheric testing. That has a lot of the different factors of disarmament and other matters, but it also has the problem of radiation, the effect on agriculture, and so on. It would seem that this was the kind of thing your Council might want to look at before the Council was in operation: the matter of whether or not you have sea disposal of atomic waste at all, or go to land sites, that the Commission has decided upon, which is a very wise decision.

This sort of thing may affect more than one agency and have & rather long range of broad effects. So it might be the kind of thing on which the Council should properly advise the President.

Mr. STAATS. To use the example of testing, of course, as you know, the President would have to approve any such tests; and our view would be that one of the considerations that he would have before him would be the advice of the Federal Radiation Council on the effect of testing, on using up the spectrum, if you will, on radiation exposure. We believe that this is simply one that we are going to have to con tinue to review from time to time, Mr. Chairman. I do not see that there is anything here at this point which would justify our revising either the purpose or the function of the Council. We believe that the President is going to have to be concerned with this problem as it develops in each of the agency's programs.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Getting back for a minute to the NCRP, you consider it important, as you said, that the NCRP remain a completely independent organization; do you not?

know.

Mr. STAATS. Yes. Of course, it has a long history, as you It has both Government and non-Government scientists in its membership. I think we have a somewhat different situation now that the Government itself has organized a Federal Radiation Council. The Federal Radiation Council, as you know, has working committees, and have been serving with this NCRP. We feel that there is posed here among the membership of the committees obviously will be people who

a problem of their service as members of an outside organization which is studying this problem, as well as serving as a member of a working group of a Government agency, working with the Federal Radiation Council.

Representative HOLIFIELD. You do not think there is a conflict there; do you?

Mr. STAATS. "Conflict" is perhaps too strong a word. We would not see any reason why they should not continue as members of this NCRP.

Representative HOLIFIELD. If they are members in the NCRP, and they develop a composite opinion or an adjusted opinion as approved, is there any reason why they would not carry that opinion over into a working group with the Council?

Mr. STAATS. This is a matter that is still under discussion; but I believe our view on that has been that in the case where the Government has asked the NCRP for its advice, the Government members should not participate in any voting or formally take a position in the NCRP on the advice that they give the Government, in view of the fact that they will be called on to review the suggestion or advice which they will receive. This we think would be proper and in order. We do not think that this would go to the point of saying they should be excluded from membership or participation in the NCRP, but perhaps an observership role, a technical adviser role would be more appropriate.

Representative HOLIFIELD. You do not anticipate that the separate working groups will nullify the need for the NCRP?

Mr. STAATS. We have not thought so, no. We think that there is room in this field for outside scientific groups of this type, whether they be in the National Academy of Sciences or the NCR.

Representative HOLIFIELD. What about the financial support? Does NCRP receive any financial support from the Government? Mr. STAATS. It has in the past, I believe, in terms of the meeting The exact amount of that I do not have with me. Representative HOLIFIELD. Would this working group of scientists be on a nonpayment basis, or would they be recompensed for their time and expenses?

expenses.

Mr. STAATS. The nongovernmental groups?

Representative HOLIFIELD. The working group, yes, the nongovernmental scientists who might be members of a working group of the

FRC.

Mr. STAATS. I believe they get per diem and travel.

Representative HOLIFIELD. As to all scientists, whether they were governmental or nongovernmental, you would have Government

funds supporting their efforts, would you not?

Mr. STAATS. They would be in the same relationship with any other adviser group called together by our Government, in that they would be authorized to receive per diem and travel for the time they spent Representative HOLIFIELD. We would assume in both instances their primary allegiance would be to the Government.

on the function.

Mr. STAATS. I believe that would be a fair statement.

Mr. RAMEY. In addition to the problem of executive privilege, which has been discussed so far as to the way the Council operates, another problem that has been raised several times is the fact that the regulatory agencies may issue their regulations to follow the Administrative Procedures Act, whereas the Council, in developing its recommendations which the President later approves, has no device for obtaining public comment, criticism, or protest on the standards that it has put out; and yet these standards practically, as your estimate recognizes, are pretty well binding on the regulatory agencies and quasi-judicial agencies, apparently, except the ICC. This seems to have raised a real problem of public policy, of how you get the public to be able to criticize this.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Apparently Congress is precluded by Executive privilege, and the public is precluded because they have no set method of going before the FRC. Then it comes down to the point that if any protest is made, it has to be made to, let's say, the AEC or the HEW, which does have protest procedures under the Administrative Procedure Act. Then, if the guides set up by NCRP are used as a defense, how does the complainant attack the wisdom of the Federal Radiation Council standards?

Mr. STAATS. I was going to follow your question by saying that I felt that the public is going to be affected, of course, by the operational standards issued by the agencies concerned; and they, of course, are under the procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act.

I

I would not think it would be appropriate for an agency to take the view that simply because the Federal Radiation Council has made a recommendation and the President has issued standards, that would be an adequate basis for denial of the petition of an outside group. would not think that would be a proper exercise of the discretion he would have, operating under the Federal Radiation Council's advice and the President's standards.

Representative HOSMER. Are you a lawyer, Mr. Staats?

Mr. STAATS. No, sir.

Representative HoSMER. Are either one of these gentlemen with you lawyers?

Mr. STAATS. No, sir.

Representative HosMER. I think you are trying to answer a ques tion of law here, that a lawyer should answer. It is the agency's regu lation. It has issued it on its authority, having gone back and used

the guide in making up a regulation.

Now, when it comes up before an administrative hearing, the ques tion is, Can the Council's guides be put in evidence? If they can be put in evidence, what is their effect? Is it conclusive proof that the regulation is proper? Does it create an irrebuttable presumption! Does it create a presumption which must be overcome by a burden of proof or is it merely a matter of weight of evidence, like any other

evidence that has come in?

I think that would probably be the case, but I want to point out,

on that one.

in here Mr. STAATS. I was speaking not from the legal standpoint. I did not understand that to be the question. I was speaking rather s to how we approached this from the standpoint of the agency's posi

tion. The standards do not change any of the basic laws under which the agencies operate.

Representative HOSMER. That is right. I think our hearings have gone pretty well into what the practical effect of these guidance rules. are, but we have a gap in our hearings as to the actual legal effect. Whether that is of importance at this point, I do not know, Mr. Chairman.

Representative HOLIFIELD. I do not think it is important as far as the degree of exposure is concerned at this time, but it might become important in the future if different agencies availed themselves of paragraph 7 in the President's memorandum to go beyond the permissible guides as they are allowed to under the President's memorandum. If there is not a coordination and a fitting together of these different agencies who go beyond the guide, you come up with a total exposure which is beyond the guides, although each agency within its own program would not be beyond the guides.

This is the point that bothers us, the point of whether FRC is going to be alert enough and staffed well enough and will perform its function well enough to coordinate and evaluate the problem which would arise at that time. Each segment of the problem would be justified legally within the guides, but the overall problem would go beyond the maximum permissible concentrations.

Representative HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, I also think this particular point would resolve whether or not the public actually had the chance to get in at these guides and have their say about them, or actually whether or not it is even necessary, since the whole issue would be decided on the regulations, which they would have a chance to come into. It is quite a question for an administrative lawyer, I think. But it does actually lead back to an answer to some of these philosophical questions we have been getting into.

such

Mr. STAATS. Are we not dealing here with an area still, though, of great uncertainty, as to their scientific implications, that I wonder if the matter of public participation in the development of the standards applies here in the same way that it does in many other fields. After all, up until the time this Council was established, there was only the National Academy of Sciences and NCRP functioning in this field for practical purposes at all.

Mr. RAMEY. And the Joint Committee.

Mr. STAATS. Yes; the Joint Committee. But I am speaking now of, as far as the public is concerned, the nongovernmental public. I do not want to arrogate from any of the work that has been done in the agencies themselves: the Bureau of Standards, of course, and Public Health and others; but as far as the public is concerned, it has been confined pretty much to the scientific community, and that has been largely pulled together through the National Academy of Sciences

and NCRP.

Representative HOLIFIELD. We realize that, and also the area of uncertainty in setting up the guides. But once the guides have been set up, as a matter of prudent judgment on the part of those who are supposed to do most about it, and once they become the criterion by which separate agencies adjust their regulations and rules, then we still come to this problem; and it is not solved by saying there is an uncertainty in setting up the original guide. We come to the problem

of, if it is set up and if it is meaningful, should it be in the overall complied with or should we, when we come to the point of noncompliance, say, "Well, after all, it is a vague and uncertain area, and although we set up a maximum permissible concentration under the guides, we have left a loophole there where each agency can go beyond it, if they give the subject serious consideration"?

This is the point that we are getting at, and I think it is a point that needs study. It is not an urgent problem at the present time, but I think it might be becoming more important in the future.

Mr. STAATS. I would agree.

Representative HOLIFIELD. If there are no further questions, we will excuse you, sir, and thank you for your testimony.

Our next witness will be Chairman John McCone of the Atomic Energy Commission.

Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT OF JOHN A. McCONE, CHAIRMAN, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN F. FLOBERG, COMMISSIONER; LOREN K. OLSON, GENERAL COUNSEL; WILLIAM F. FINAN, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER; ROBERT LOWENSTEIN, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL; NATHAN H. WOODRUFF, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF HEALTH AND SAFETY; AND HOWARD C. BROWN, ASSISTANT TO THE CHAIRMAN

Mr. MCCONE. Mr. Chairman, before asking your permission to present a brief prepared statement, let me say I was down at Oak Ridge yesterday, and I brought back with me a new Geiger counter [displaying device] that is quite a remarkabe instrument that they have just invented and developed at Oak Ridge. It is very useful. As you know, when we go into places that are suspected of being radioactive, we have badges so that we record what exposure we have had This is an important and useful machine. I think it is going to be very useful.

I have a radiation source here, and when I bring the source close, then there is a response to it, you see [demonstrating, producing audible sound].

Representative HOLIFIELD. Hold it in front of the microphone. Mr. MCCONE. Yes [doing so].

Representative HOLIFIELD. If you had that, you would not need a canary, would you?

Mr. MCCONE. No. As you walk around through various parts of the plant, this would respond at various levels of intensity.

This source is a radioisotope. I will give this to you, Mr. Chairman, not to prove to you that the Commission has the slightest intention of charging you with radioactivity; but I think you would like to see it up close. (Showing to Representative Holifield.)

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today with Secretary Flemming and other witnesses from the executive branch to complete the Government's testimony on radiation protection criteria and standards their basis and use.

The Commission welcomes the opportunity to participate in these hearings; we believe they serve well the important objective of pro