ematerials, to see that they are up to date before you repeat this pattern tat the State level?

Mr. OLSON. Not directly as such, but of course we have been curIrently reviewing our own procedures, and they get re-reviewed when - we come to write the criteria that we recently disseminated to the States. I think you can say in effect that we have; yes.

of Mr. TOLL. What happens if you enter into an agreement with the 1, State and relinquish authority to regulate certain types of material, sand then AEC decides to either raise the standards or raise the numhber of inspections that should be made over those types of materials, se and the State refuses to go along with it? What do you do then? Mr. OLSON. We have not yet had in mind keeping a string on this e relinquishment of authority.

Ꮎ

3, Mr. TOLL. You have a statutory string.

Le Mr. OLSON. Yes; but I do not think we can follow it in that much detail, Mr. Toll, or we will not really be relinquishing anything to Le the State.

LO I think in a broad sense if we feel that public health and safety is e jeopardized, we would exercise the statutory authority. But so far as making sure that they comply with every change we make, I think r that would be going further than the statute contemplated.

n Mr. TOLL. The most important thing, perhaps, is that before you a turn over this authority

Mr. OLSON. We must feel completely satisfied.

se Mr. TOLL. You look at the standards and the number of inspections, y, and you can feel that they are current.

се

Mr. MCCONE. And then I think that we have a current educational d program. As we develop new information that causes new or difit ferent precautionary procedures, we have to demonstrate to the States that they should follow it.

r. Now, this is regularly done with the boiler codes. As you know, 10 the boiler codes throughout all States are uniform. They are revised from time to time. And then the authorities in the States re- view them, and they act in concert. It has been a long process. It has taken 50 or 75 years to do it. We have been very successful. This h is the way the problem has to be approached.

y Representative HOLIFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and gentle

ir men.

u

Mr. MCCONE. Thank you.

Representative HOLIFIELD. The next witness will be Mr. Frank e. Berry, Assistant Secretary of Defense, Health and Medical. in Mr. Berry.

se STATEMENT OF DR. FRANK B. BERRY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (HEALTH AND MEDICAL)

fy

Dr. BERRY. Mr. Chairman, I am Dr. Frank B. Berry, Assistant al Secretary of Defense for Health and Medical.

Gentlemen, I am most happy to appear before you today. As you re may be aware, at the request of former Secretary McElroy, I rephe resented him as the Department of Defense representative on the ce Federal Radiation Council, established by Executive Order 10831 and Public Law 86-373. Because of my own lack of intimate knowledge

in the field of ionizing radiation, I immediately asked Dr. Shields Warren, a well known authority in this field, to act as my consultant, and also appointed Col. Carl Tessmer, Medical Corps, U.S. Army, as my representative on the working group. Colonel Tessmer has specialized in this field for some years. Dr. Warren is Chairman of the Committee on Pathologic Effects of Atomic Radiation of the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council, and in addition is the U.S. representative to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. Dr. Warren was present at many of the meetings of the Council with me--and, I might add, received copies of the minutes of all of the meetings and Colonel Tessmer was always on hand both at the meetings and also in the great amount of time he gave with all the members of the working group to the problems.

Radiation protection criteria and standards have been of concern to the Department of Defense for many years because of the way in which we use radiation and radioactive materials. The Defense position was extremely well stated in chapter 6 of the Joint Committee (86th Cong., 2d sess.) entitled "Selected Materials on Radiation Protection Criteria and Standards: Their Basis and Use," under the heading of "Statement of the Department of Defense." I can add very little.

Among the sources of radiation resulting from Department of Defense activities are the following:

(1) Naval nuclear propulsion, including crew exposure, discharge of radioactive materials, and repair activity exposures; (2) Aircraft nuclear propulsion, including air and ground crew exposure, and discharge of material into the atmosphere; (3) Research and power reactors, including package type where crew and neighborhood exposures must be considered; (4) Radioactive source sets, including storage, training, and transportation exposure;

(5) Radioactive materials, including exposures by users and

others, weapon handling and accidental exposure;

(6) The medical uses of radiation, both diagnostic and therapeutic, the hazards incident thereto.

In all these activities detailed regulations have been necessary to insure the safety of the working personnel as well as the safety of the civilian population generally. A supplementary list of the regula tions not previously submitted has been forwarded to the committee with the covering letter to the preprint.

These regulations are all based on the standards contained in the National Bureau of Standards handbooks which are based on the National Committee for Radiation Protection recommendations and the Code of Federal Regulations, title 10, part 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation." Every effort has been made in writing these regulations to conform both to the spirit and the letter of the National Committee for Radiation Protection standards.

radiation exposure

In the practical application of Department of Defense regulations that our personnel have had exposures well below maximum permishas been kept to a minimum and our records show sible limits set by the National Committee for Radiation Protection. the in

cidents have been investigated and measures taken to prevent recur

rence.

I am familiar with the statement of the Joint Committee print and lso with the Committee for Radiation Protection recommendations and the Code of Federal Regulations, title 10, parts 20 and 30. I am also familiar with the 1960 reports from the National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, entitled, "The Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation, Report to the Public" and the "Biological Effects of Atomic Radiation Summary Reports."

I am in complete agreement with the report and with a memoranlum for the President from the Federal Radiation Council and approved by him on May 13, 1960.

As one who has long been interested in the problems of radiation hazards, both from a diagnostic and therapeutic standard, as a pracicing physician and surgeon, I have welcomed the term "Radiation Protection Guides" recommended in this report.

I have just returned from the annual Assembly of the World Health Organization in Geneva. The permanent Secretariat furnished us with a complete report on the problem of ionizing radiation very similar to the initial report of the Federal Radiation Council and portions of the Department of Defense statement in chapter 6 of the Joint Committee (86th Cong., 2d sess.). There was full discussion by the Committee on Program of this report and the whole problem; this occurred immediately after my departure.

The Department of Defense will continue to be guided by and base its regulations on the National Committee for Radiation Protection recommendations and standards, and on such guidance as develops from the Federal Radiation Council in order to protect the health and promote the safety of its personnel and the civilian population of the country.

May I add that at the two meetings at which I was not present at the meeting of the Council, my deputy, Dr. Edward H. Cushing, was there, together with Colonel Tessmer.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Hosmer?

Representative HOSMER. I have no questions.
Representative HOLIFIELD. Mr. Ramey?

Mr. RAMEY. What is the status of the report that the Joint Committee requested of the Department of Defense on the problem of DOD and AEC hazards matters and who was going to be responsible for approving the standards?

Dr. BERRY. We have worked with the AEC very closely, and I have been in frequent informal communication with Dr. Dunham. We also have our own group, the Defense Atomic Support Agency, which is in immediate contact with that problem. The Strategic Air Force and their daily programs have to handle this program and have already good investigation teams where any accident may have occurred, and the reports are very promptly made.

Mr. RAMEY. I am referring to a specific report that the committee requested shortly after the end of the last session, where it was proposed, as you may recall, that the language of the Atomic Energy Act would be clarified as to the relative roles of AEC and the Defense

Department with respect to the establishment or approval of standards governing safety in the handling of radioactive materials.

Dr. BERRY. Yes, sir. The adviser to the Secretary of Defense is General Loper, who is a liaison with the Atomic Energy Commission, and during peacetime the standards as prescribed by them and by the Atomic Energy Commission and the NCRP are followed. I think there are times, naturally, when those would have to be altered.

Mr. RAMEY. I think more specifically the question arose last year of Admiral Rickover, wearing his AEC hat, bringing up the problem of whether the Commission under the law was responsible for approving Department of Defense standards applying to the handling of radioactive materials, more specifically to naval reactors. And I think a number of members of the committee concurred in that view. And then suddenly the Commission brought up the matter of possible legislation that might clarify this situation. And rather than deal with it in this last session, the committee requested the Department of Defense and AEC to submit a report on how they were operating and what the problems were and suggesting legislative language. Now that we are approaching the end of this session we are wondering when that report will be forthcoming.

Dr. BERRY. No, sir. I do not know the details of that. I would have to find out from General Loper, the atomic liaison member of the Department of Defense.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Will you find that out, please, Mr. Secretary, and give us a communication in regard to it?

Dr. BERRY. Yes, sir.*

Mr. RAMEY. One other question that we have raised, I believe, with a number of our witnesses, concerns the role of the Federal Radiation Council. Do you think it is a proper role for them to consider each new use of radiation by the Defense Department during peacetime that might significantly increase general population dosage? Dr. BERRY. Yes, I think it is, sir.

As you know, there are certain areas throughout the world where there is a fairly high degree of radiation. This is important to humanity as a whole. It is not only important from the genetics standpoint, but also important from the immediate pathogenic standpoint and the long-term pathogenic standpoint. I think it is always important to consider this problem.

And much along the lines of the testimony of Chairman McCone, I think that is a problem not only for the regulating agencies, but for the Federal Radiation Council in its advisory capacity.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Any other questions?

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your appearance.

The Chair will announce that Secretary Flemming was detained before the Ways and Means Committee this morning and was unable to appear as he was listed. An attempt is being made to fit him into the list of witnesses either later on today or in the morning. We will stand adjourned until 2 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to reconvene at 2 p.m., the same day.)

*A partial reply was received from the Department of Defense in August 1960.

AFTERNOON SESSION

Representative HOLIFIELD. The committee will be in order. We will continue our hearings this afternoon, and our first item will be a roundtable on topic IV, "Administrative and Legislative Relationships and Problems."

Our members will be Dr. Selove, Mr. Parker, Dr. Williams, Mr. Oliver Townsend, Prof. David Cavers, and Mr. Charles Schwan.

Mr. Townsend is from the New York State Office of Atomic Energy. Prof. David Cavers was until recently the associate dean, Harvard University Law School, and Mr. Charles Schwan is with the Council of State Governments.

Gentlemen, will you please come forward?

Mr. Parker, I have requested you to make a statement to set the stage for the discussion, if you will proceed.

1

ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION ON ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGISLATIVE RELATIONSHIPS AND PROBLEMS. PARTICIPANTS: DR. WALTER SELOVE,1 DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS, UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; H. M. PARKER, MANAGER, HANFORD LABORATORIES OPERATION, GENERAL ELECTRIC CO.; DR. CHARLES R. WILLIAMS,1 ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO.; MR. OLIVER TOWNSEND,2 DIRECTOR, NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF ATOMIC DEVELOPMENT; PROF. DAVID CAVERS, ASSOCIATE DEAN, HARVARD UNIVERSITY; MR. CHARLES SCHWAN, COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS; DR. DONALD E. CHADWICK, SECRETARY, FEDERAL RADIATION COUNCIL, ACCOMPANIED BY DR. ALLEN ASTIN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

3

1

Mr. PARKER. Thank you very much, Mr. Holifield.

You were kind enough to invite me to try to set the stage for these hearings, from the floor, earlier. I appreciate this opportunity to spend a few minutes trying to relate back my personal impressions of the salient points of the hearings to that attempted introduction.

Of course, when the material was prepared for the introduction, I had not anticipated that there would be material from the Federal Radiation Council. By contrast, that material has relatively dominated the hearings.