2-1. We urge the Atomic Energy Commission and other responsible organizations, including industry, to sponsor and assist in the preparation of such specific studies as may be needed to assist local governments to adjust to the impact of peaceful atomic energy activities such as: transportation and handling of nuclear materials, disposal of radioactive waste, special training of local personnel, and development of needed local ordinances. Further, that the results of such studies be published and made available in guide form-suitable for use by local officials. Standards and model codes and ordinances are urgently needed to guide and assist in local programs. Research in this area should push ahead unabated. The National Committee on Radiation Protection, the American Standards Association, and other groups should be encouraged to accelerate their efforts. The Federal Government, professional and industry groups should provide all possible assistance. 2-2. When atomic energy licenses are issued, prompt notice should be given to the communities in which the licensees are to operate. At present, although the locality may be the first to get the impact, it is often the last to know. Delay may be dangerous by causing neglect of essential local protective measures. It may be necessary for the AEC to notify communities directly in order to assure prompt local notification. 2–3. Member municipalities are urged to pass an ordinance requiring those who handle and use atomic or radioactive materials in the community, to register same with local government and that a specific local officer be designated for that purpose. Cities are also urged to consider setting up of proper facilities to monitor the radioactive conditions in the atmosphere, water supply, and general environment. 2-4. A central clearinghouse of information on the local impact is urgently needed. At present it is necessary for local officials to make requests to many different offices in order to find out what information is available on such basic matters as standards, training, and the like. Then, the information is often incomplete. A central clearinghouse of information in this field should be set up on a national basis at the earliest possible time, and its location should be publicized. 2-5. Training is a critical factor in local programs. Prompt effort should be made to build a reservoir of health and engineering personnel with a background in radiation use and protection. This is a long-range objective, and will require the cooperation of all levels of government, educational institutions, and other groups. Meanwhile, special programs are needed to provide existing local personnel with necessary training. The Federal Government should quickly provide assistance and financial support to stimulate efforts under Public Law 86-373. ATOMIC ENERGY AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2-6. Important in the consideration of the development of new and challenging applications of atomic energy is the need to safeguard all persons from the dangers of ionizing radiation. The association bélieves the establishment of a Federal Radiation Council to be a salutary move toward the much needed coordination of Federal agencies involved in this complex problem. The association views with some apprehension the continuation of a situation where no single Federal agency is delegated sole responsibility for the protection of the public's health from the harmful effect of ionizing radiation. In future delegation of authority and responsibility from the Atomic Energy Commission to State governments, as authorized by Public Law 86-373, the AMA urges that cognizance be made of the important role to be played by municipalities and that procedures ve established whereby these municipalities can and will be involved in all plans and operations which may affect them. [Attachment No. 2] STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN MUNICIPAL ASSOCIATION ON RADIATION STANDARDS SUBMITTED BY PATRICK HEALY, JR., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR The American Municipal Association is the national representative of approximately 13,000 municipal governments throughout the United States and Puerto Rico. It is organized on the basis of affiliation with State leagues of municipalities in 47 States, plus 225 direct member cities. Cities eligible for direct membership must have a population of 50,000 or more, be a State capital, or one of the State's 10 largest cities. RADIATION STANDARDS Several factors must be recognized primarily to demonstrate the need and requirement for controlling radiation hazards on a local as well as the Federal level. The great expanse of our Nation, the recognized advantages of regional and decentralized administration, and the long experience of States, municipalities, and local governments in enforcement and inspection in health, safety, and industrial fields, are all easily acknowledged reasons for a sharing of this awesome responsibility. More than half of the States have already taken action either through legislation or through adoption of regulations. An examination of their varying provisions serves to demonstrate a very important, and thus far neglected, need for a single set of standards on maximum levels of radiation exposure. This, in our opinion, is the responsibility solely of the Federal Government, which has the broadest interest in protecting the health and safety of its citizens and which through its preemption in the nuclear energy field has acquired the best knowledge and facilities to guide it in this important function. Unless such uniformity is established, the efforts of the States, municipalities, and local governments will result in a hodgepodge of conflicting and chaotic regulations. In the event that such a uniform standard is set, there still remains for the States the problem of the shortage of trained personnel to carry out inspection and enforcement of standards. It is doubtful that the States can develop the technical staffs or acquire the necessary facilities in a satisfactorily short period of time to deal with these problems adequately and effectively. The municipality, the governmental level which is closest to the citizen in matters affecting his everyday life, is more likely to assume this responsibility in making inspections of industrial establishments within its confines and in effectively enforcing the standards. The need for a Federal-State-municipal relationship must be recognized and such a relationship established and maintained in order to insure the most effective and expeditious cooperation on all three levels. It is emphatically recommended that the role of the municipalities in inspection and enforcement of radiation standards be recognized by legislative direction to the effect that the Federal agency, whether the Atomic Energy Commission or the Public Health Service, which the Congress in its wisdom will decide is best suited to administer radiation control, is empowered to deal directly with the municipalities in carrying out this vital measure for the preservation of the health and safety of our citizens. Representative HOLIFIELD. Our next witness will be the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Honorable Arthur S. Flemming. STATEMENT OF ARTHUR S. FLEMMING, SECRETARY OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE; ACCOMPANIED BY DR. J. D. PORTERFIELD, DEPUTY SURGEON GENERAL, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; JACK HARVEY, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; DR. ALLEN V. ASTIN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS; DR. DONALD CHADWICK, SECRETARY, FEDERAL RADIATION COUNCIL; AND DR. CLINTON POWELL, PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE, MEMBER, FIRST TASK FORCE, FEDERAL RADIATION COUNCIL, AND MEMBER N.C.R.P. & M. Representative HOLIFIELD. Mr. Secretary, it is certainly a pleasure to have you before us. We recognize what a heavy schedule you have had and how difficult it has been for you to get away from your other witness duties with another committee, the Committee on Ways and Means, and we are happy to have you here this morning. 58454-60—————34 Secretary FLEMMING. Mr. Chairman, may I say I certainly appreciate the committee's patience and understanding. I am sorry I have been tied up with the other committee as continuously as I have. Representative HOLIFIELD. We feel that as head of the Federal Radiation Council you are a very important witness to us. As your subordinates have probably told you, we have been exploring the procedures of the Federal Radiation Council, and undoubtedly we will have a number of questions to ask you. I see you have a prepared statement. You may proceed with that, and then we will ask you the questions. Secretary FLEMMING. Mr. Chairman, this is a very brief opening statement. I appreciated very much your giving Dr. Chadwick the opportunity of presenting to the committee the statement that I prepared for the hearing on May 25. In the statement that Dr. Chadwick presented here last week, the origins of the Federal Radiation Council and its activities to date were described. In addition to creating the Council, which was later made statutory, the President last year directed that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare intensify its radiological health efforts and have primary responsibility within the executive branch for the collation, analysis, and interpretation of data on environmental radiation levels, including natural background and medical and industrial use of isotopes and X-rays and fallout. This was to be done, the President stated, "so that the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare may advise the President and the general public.' In accordance with this mandate I proceeded immediately to make specific delegations of responsibility for the Department's various radiological health activities, focused primarily in the Public Health Service and the Food and Drug Administration. These were spelled out in a revision of the Department's internal manual which was made public on August 26, 1959. I offer a copy of that announcement for inclusion in the record at this point. Representative HOLIFIELD. That will be included in the record. (The statement referred to appears in app. 3, p. 597.) Secretary FLEMMING. The details of radiological health activities of the Public Health Service and the Food and Drug Administration have been set forth in the volume of selected materials issued prior to these hearings and in testimony presented by Dr. John D. Porterfield, Dr. Francis J. Weber, Commissioner George P. Larrick, Dr. Edwin Laug, and others. Among these statements there are frequent references to organizational, administrative, and legislative relationships and problems, the topic of our discussion here today. Therefore, I will limit my direct statement on this topic to some general observations. As we all know, ionizing radiation has the potentiality of affecting, both beneficially and adversely, every individual and every major interest in our country. A force so powerful is automatically of major interest to many segments of both the legislative and executive branches of the Federal Government. This means, for example, that persons in both branches of the Government, as well as persons outside of Government, need to be kept up to date on relevant facts. This is why the Radiological Health Division of the Public Health Service is now issuing a new publication called Radiological Health Data. The May issue of this periodical has just been released, and copies have been made available to the committee. Responding to the Presidential directive that our Department assume major responsibility within the Federal establishment for the collation, analysis, and interpretation of radiological health data, the Public Health Service last fall set up a special organization within its Division of Radiological Health for this purpose. Last December we decided that the environmental radiation data collected by this program should be assembled each month into a monthly statistical publication and made available to the Congress, the executive department, individual scientists, State and local health agencies, universities, special libraries, professional organizations, and the public. To insure that the responsibilities and resources of other branches of the Government would be represented in this publication, a board of editorial advisers has been appointed, with representatives from the Atomic Energy Commission, and the Departments of Defense, Commerce, and Agriculture, as well as our own Department. As a result of this activity, there is now available in a convenient form data previously issued separately at varying intervals by many different sources, as well as new types of data that are steadily being developed. An example of the attention being given to a coordinated consideration of the facts on environmental radiation as new data become available was a recent action by various Federal agencies in connection with findings by the Atomic Energy Commission of high levels of strontium 90 in wheat products, especially bran. These findings were brought to our attention by the Atomic Energy Commission, and it was agreed that every effort should be made to determine the significance of these findings so that the data could be properly interpreted when they were made public. Specifically, what we wanted to determine was whether these levels of strontium 90 constituted a health hazard and, if so, what action to protect the public health should be taken. The Public Health Service and the Food and Drug Administration concluded that the present intake of strontium 90 from all dietary sources, even allowing for above-average amounts of bran, does not constitute a public health hazard warranting any regulatory action. This conclusion was concurred in at a special meeting of the Federal Radiation Council in which a representative of the Secretary of Agriculture participated. Accordingly, a press statement was issued to this effect simultaneously with the release of the Atomic Energy Commission report containing the strontium 90 findings in wheat. I am submitting a copy of this statement for the record at this time. Representative HOLIFIELD. That may be included. (The statement referred to appears in app. 4, p. 605.) Secretary FLEMMING. I believe that progress has been made during the past year toward establishing the foundation of a nationwide radiation protection program for the general population. With increased funds requested by the President and made available by the Congress, research, training, and technical assistance to State agencies have been markedly increased by the Public Health Service, and progressively greater efforts planned for the years ahead. The radiation surveillance networks are being expanded and strengthened. New laboratories have been established. The Food and Drug Administration has increased and sharpened its radioactive surveillance programs within the limits of its financial and manpower resources. To this end, there has been an augmentation of existing instrumentation for radioactivity measurement. A new laboratory to house this equipment has been completed. Studies designed to improve sampling and analytical techniques and to learn. more about the effects of industrial food processing in reducing or eliminating radioactivity have been initiated. We will be glad, of course, to furnish to this committee any additional information the members desire to receive. Representative HOLIFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Hickenlooper? Senator HICKENLOOPER. I do not believe I have any questions, Mr. Chairman. Representative HOLIFIELD. Mr. Hosmer? Mr. Secretary, you indicate you use samples of vegetables or hay for determining the amount of fallout. Do you take it before a rain, after a rain, or halfway between rains? Would that not make a great difference as to this accumulation, whether it was perhaps of 3 weeks or a month? Secretary FLEMMING. Senator Aiken, Dr. Harvey, who is the Deputy Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, is with me, and they have operating responsibility in that area. I will ask him to respond to your question. Dr. HARVEY. Senator, it is not necessary to take it in any particular relation to the last rain. Samples may be taken at any time. Senator AIKEN. I did not understand you. Dr. HARVEY. Samples are taken regularly and usually periodically, but they are not necessarily related to the last rainfall, if I understood your question. Senator AIKEN. They are not? Another thing is, I notice that you use spinach as an example. In taking samples of spinach, do you take curly leaf spinach or smooth leaf spinach? Dr. HARVEY. We take either one or both. Senator AIKEN. Would there not be difference? Would not the curly leaf spinach collect much more fallout than smooth leaf spinach? Dr. HARVEY. Of course, the contour and texture of the leaf does made a difference; yes. It is different vegetation. Senator AIKEN. I do not think I have any more questions, but I do think that the ones I asked were pertinent. Secretary FLEMMING. Senator, I agree. Representative HOLIFIELD. This shows the advantage of having a farmer on the committee. He knows about curly leaf as well as smooth leaf spinach, and many of us in the city do not. Mr. Secretary, during the course of the hearings there have been quite a number of problem areas explored. Your Doctor Chadwick made a very fine statement here, and there has been quite a bit of |