the same regulations, and use the same standard for compliance: namely, a maximum permissible dose in a legal sense, but now being called a radiation protection guide.

In assuming that this was not what was intended, I relied in part on the trend of testimony during the course of the last week's testimony, which led me to feel that there was a general dissatisfaction with the use of specific numbers as rules beyond which one might not go. There is a great deal of emphasis on the importance of the use of reason and judgment in the evaluation of particular circumstances. So I had assumed that this was more than a matter of semantics, and it was an effort to get at a rather different approach to the regulatory problem.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Dr. Chadwick?

Dr. CHADWICK. I think part of this apparent confusion is really a result of the fact that this guidance, as issued by the President, is obviously applicable to a wide number of Federal agencies with different types of programs. I do not believe there was any thought in the issuance of this guidance that Federal agencies would alter their basic approach. It was assumed that the Atomic Energy Commission in its regulatory program would continue to follow its statutory responsibilities and operate in the same basic way. But there are certain other agencies whose programs differ from this type of approach. This broad guidance from the President is intended to apply to all of these agencies, to be adapted by them to the particular modus operandi that is applicable to their statutory responsibility.

Representative HOLIFIELD. This brings me back, Mr. Parker, to my original request that we have a simple glossary of terms. I will take out the word "simple" and say that we should have a glossary of terms which is adopted, if possible, by the NCRP and by the FRC, as well as other agencies of Government. If we can set up a common definition, it would be of immense value. I know it would be of value to members of this committee. I know it would be difficult to do.

Mr. PARKER. By implication, Mr. Chairman, I have already accepted this charge. I would like to work with others, and I anticipate it will take at least 2 weeks to present the considered material.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Dean Cavers, did you have anything further to say on that?

Professor CAVERS. No, I do not.

Mr. RAMEY. Dean Cavers, in the way the Federal Radiation Council has operated, by issuing this guidance or directive to the Federal agencies, in doing so without holding hearings and bringing in any public scrutiny of its recommendations, and also exercising executive privilege as far as Congress is concerned, do you think this is a desirable way to operate? Should it follow normal administrative law or general Federal organizational patterns?

Professor CAVERS. It seems to me, Mr. Ramey, that it is a little hard to generalize as to that until we have had some experience in seeing the agency's regulatory responsibilities in operation. Mr. Hosmer, this morning pointed out the range of possible weights that might be given to recommendations of this sort by a regulatory agency which is operating under the Administrative procedure Act. It might be that an agency would give so much weight to the recommendation as to, in effect, defeat the effectiveness of the public hearing. It would be en

tertaining witnesses, but after the Council's voice would be heard, and there would not really be a chance for the agency to work out an independent judgment.

As I listened to Mr. Staats' testimony this morning, in which he emphasized the advisory characteristics of this recommendation, it seemed to me quite reassuring. Certainly there should be no reason why advice from a group of interested agencies should not be taken into account by an agency with a statutory responsibility, and the requirement that it accept, receive, and consider public views. But the problem, I think, is mostly one of the weight to be given to the recommendation as received and the weight to be given by the agency to the public testimony and comments that it receives. I should think it could work out so that this would be compatible with the operation under the Administrative Procedures Act. I think this is something we can tell better in the light of the actual operation under this.

Representative HOSMER. Dean Cavers, I think it might be enlightening if you told us what you conceive the Federal Radiation Council's guides to be, in the sense of: a guide to whom? For what purpose?

Professor CAVERS. I take it that this represents a consensus of the considered judgments of the various interested agencies, both those represented on the Council and those who may have been interested and had the chance to advise the Council as to their views, as to a common program which is desirable but not conclusive. This is a directive of a sort, but in the nature of advisory directive, according to Mr. Staats this morning. As an advisory directive, I take it it is entitled to be weighed, but not one which has to be followed.

This problem of giving weight to it in the light of the particular circumstances in which an individual agency finds itself is the one that I was mentioning awhile ago. They may have comments and information from the public which they would regard as decisive for them, and, if they pursue the counsel thus received, rather than the advice of the Federal Radiation Council, I take it they would then go back to the Council and try to work things out. If they could not, and there would remain a difference, we would have to see what would follow from that difference.

Representative HOSMER. As enunciated by the President, however, these guides are to Government departments and agencies for their use in establishing the rules internal to their organization, as well as regulations which they are empowered to make as applied to people external to the organization. That about sums it up; does it not?

Professor CAVERS. I think there are rules to be taken into account by the agencies in the process of formulating regulations, if the agencies have powers to regulate outside activities. Perhaps these rules would have greater weight than that and more binding influence, when the problem was raised by the agency's own operations and not by the exercise of its regulatory power. For example, in administering its contracts, it might be that there would be a greater compulsion on the agency to follow the recommendation than in the case when it was issuing regulations subject to the Administrative Procedure Act. Representative HOSMER. Perhaps if we conceive of them as general principles that guide specific applications by agencies and departments, some of the doubt or confusion might be cleared up.

Professor CAVERS. I think that would be valid if you would include "advisory general" principles in the formulation of it.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Mr. Townsend, I would like to get back to a phase of application from the State standpoint and ask you, What has been your experience in New York in recent years in the regulation of X-ray devices? I understand you do have a law, of course, along that line. Has that law been brought up to date? Have your inspection forces been augmented? Have you done any important surveys in this particular field of radiation?

Mr. TOWNSEND. There are three codes, and they have been in effect since around 1955, and they apply to X-ray sources of radiation as well as everything else.

It is primarily within the last year that a registration program has been undertaken, and this is now in its last phase.

Representative HOLIFIELD. You are talking about the administration of X-ray devices?

Mr. TOWNSEND. That is right.

There is also registration of radiation sources and byproduct materials as defined under the Federal law.

Representative HOLIFIELD. I want to get to that in a minute.

Mr. TOWNSEND. This effort to register all X-ray sources of radiation is now in its very last phases. I think now probably just about all of them are registered. There are over 20,000 in the State of New York, and it is quite a large operation.

Also, the byproduct sources are registered and have been for a period of a couple of years, the radioisotope sources. Where the Federal Government asserts authority through licensing, the State nevertheless has required registration.

Representative HOLIFIELD. How about inspection? Do you have an adequate inspection force to go around and inspect these machines and see that they are operating properly?

Mr. TOWNSEND. We think that the inspection force is adequate. Whether the AEC will consider it adequate as far as entering into an agreement is concerned is still not a settled question.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Twenty thousand devices are quite a considerable number, for inspection, calibration, evaluation, and so forth.

Mr. TOWNSEND. The inspection has applied primarily to radium and radioisotopes. Really, there has not been much of an inspection yet in the case of X-ray, except in unusual situations. The registration program is just in its last phases with regard to X-ray. But there has been an inspection program that has been under way for several years as far as radioisotopes are concerned.

Representative HOLIFIELD. We had some testimony last week from the New York health representative that the States cannot regulate the design of machines, they cannot regulate the manufacturers. Is that true?

Mr. TOWNSEND. That is what I understand.

Representative HOLIFIELD. But you could regulate the use of the machine if it was considered to be detrimental.

Mr. TOWNSEND. That is right. The radiation codes apply in the case of X-ray machines. There is the case of medical use where, in the judgment of the doctor, it is required; that is, outside of this.

Representative HOLIFIELD. But as total calibration of the machine, the efficiency of the machine, if it was a dangerous machine, like an obsolete fluoroscope, let us say, you do have the means of precluding the use of those machines; do you not?

Mr. TOWNSEND. This is my understanding.

Representative HOLIFIELD. What sort of a force do you have? Do you have a force to go around and inspect these machines yet? How many do you have?

Mr. TOWNSEND. First of all, I think you have to think in terms of people who are specially qualified in the radiation field; call them health physicists, if you want.

Representative HOLIFIELD. I am not talking about a health officer who does not know anything about radiation. I am talking about someone who knows how to look at a machine or measure it and find out whether it is a dangerous machine or one that could be used properly.

Mr. TOWNSEND. As far as our office is concerned, and the State atomic energy law under which we function, it is similar to the Federal one, in that it is limited to byproduct material, special nuclear materials, and so on. So X-ray sources are outside of our area of interest and jurisdiction.

In the area in which we are interested, there are over 20 qualified people within the regulatory agencies of the State of New York that will be doing the inspection, probably initially doing all of the inspection. Later on, as we have a training program, there will be more people who inspect for other purposes brought into this program. But we are going to start at the barrier, the starting line, with about 20 qualified people.

Representative HOLIFIELD. And they will devote their attenion to radioactive sources?

Mr. TOWNSEND. Of the type covered by the agreement with the Atomic Energy Commission.

Representative HOLIFIELD. By the Atomic Energy Act.

I would like to question you with regard to notification to the State by the licensees or by the AEC of newly licensed people and new sources which might be brought into your State for industrial or other type of use. What does your law provide? Does your law provide that the licensee that intends to use radioactive material shall notify the State and the city in which he expects to use it, or do you depend upon a notification from the AEC to the State and then have it filter down to the local body?

Mr. TOWNSEND. The State requires this registration from the user himself. He is supposed to register his source.

Representative HOLIFIELD. With the State?

Mr. TOWNSEND. With the State. If he is an industry, he registers it with the department of labor; if he is a medical institution or university health institution, he registers it with the State department of health upstate, and the city department of health in the city.

Representative HOLIFIELD. How does the city of Schenectady or Syracuse find out about this?

Mr. TOWNSEND. In New York State, the health districts and the county health officers and so on are very closely tied in with the State

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 :)

Hon. CHET HOLIFIELD,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Radiation,

Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
Congress of the United States,
Washington, D.O.

STATE OF New York,
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