consistent with the recommended radiation protection guides "as an interim measure"? What does the term "consistent" mean, and who determines it? The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations has no ready answers to the various questions it has raised with the Commission, and has presented them to the members of this committee, as representing large areas of confusion, doubt, and growing concern in the whole Federal radiation picture. These questions must be resolved and an integrated Federal radiation policy be rapidly drawn up in the public interest before matters are allowed to deteriorate further. The reasons for the need of action now are self-evident. 1. The number of potentially exposed workers is growing rapidly, and about 9 out of every 10 are not AEC employees. 2. The Commission is now releasing more hazardous materials such as plutonium. Plutonium, mixed with beryllium, is a useful neutron source for the oil industry. This mixture has a potential hazard far greater than most of the other isotopes released to date by the AEC. 3. It is now easier with relaxed AEC licensing standards for licenses for use of AEC materials to be obtained. 4. Since AEC is no longer the sole source of isotopes, and the number of users is rapidly growing, control of radiation hazards is becoming more difficult. 5. Licensees have not, nor will they have as good a safety record as the AEC and its contractors. 6. More common use of radioactive materials is resulting in a change in the kind of personnel handling them. 7. Development of knowledge about nature and effects of radiation on human beings is changing basic safety requirements. 8. Latent effects of radiation on human beings raises the hazard of occupational disease which may come as a result of chronic radiation exposure, or may induce genetic defects in descendants of the victim. This means that continued research is necessary to determine whether existing standards have reduced the problems of illnesses or injury and are adequate, or whether it is indicated that further downward revisions are necessary. 9. Large areas of non-AEC radiation exposure-X-ray, radium particle accelerator-are under State regulation in the rare cases where they are both in existence and meaningful to workers and the public. Industrial and medical uses of X-ray equipment do not operate under uniformly high standards, and the same is true of medical and hospital uses of X-rays and radium. The AFL-CIO wishes to thank this committee for having the foresight to provide the basis for beginning to enlarge public education and public debate on the matter of radiation. I repeat what I stated at the outset of this statement, that this should provide a foundation for sound and urgently needed integrated national radiation policy. The AFL-CIO has for many years been carrying out educational programs among its own people to acquaint them with radiation problems as they affect not only their job safety, but their status as citizens. We will continue our efforts to help achieve the goal of sound, adequate radiation health and safety standards and programs uniformly administered, and with human values always placed above all other considerations. Representative HOSMER. Thank you, Mr. Biemiller. I think you did a fine job of pulling together in one statement the many problems that have come up from time to time during the past 7 days. Mr. BIEMILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. RAMEY. I believe the members of your organization were here when Secretary Flemming, Chairman of the Federal Radiation Council, testified this morning. He indicated that the Federal Radiation Council would be willing to have public discussion of their recommendations prior to their being adopted. When asked as to whether or not they would issue procedures or rules, he indicated he did not know whether that was necessary or not. In view of the fact that many of their recommendations will not be necessarily regulatory in nature, do you think it would be sufficient if they merely issue procedures on permitting the public and representatives of labor and others, to testify publicly on their resolutions and so on? Would that be sufficient rather than just placing them right under the Administrative Procedures Act? Mr. BIEMILLER. This would be a step in the right direction, Mr. Ramey, under the present act. You will note, however, that one of the points we raise is that we would like to see the powers of the Council strengthened by drastic amendments to section 274, so that the decisions of the Federal Radiation Council would constitute national radiation standards and criteria. We would like these decisions to take on the aspect of regulations and certainly if that happens, then we would insist on the Administrative Procedures Act being applied by instruction of the Congress. I will repeat, however, I will be glad to see any steps taken in the way of getting more public discussion of these problems until section 274 is properly amended. Representative HOSMER. It is only through public discussion that we will have the understanding of the general public that is necessary. Mr. BIEMILLER. Right. Representative HOSMER. Thank you very much for your statement. Mr. BIEMILLER. Mr. Chairman, I believe there has been presented a letter from Mr. Brownlow. Representative HOSMER. Yes; we have a letter to Chairman Anderson from James A. Brownlow, president of the metal trades department of the AFL-CIO, and it will be entered in the record at this point. Mr. BIEMILLER. Thank you very much. (The letter referred to follows :) Senator CLINTON P. ANDERSON, METAL TRADES DEPARTMENT, Chairman, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Chairman, Special Subcommittee on Radiation, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN ANDERSON and CHAIRMAN HOLIFIELD: As the members of this committee know, the metal trades department, AFL-CIO has a broad and deep interest in the welfare and well-being of workers whose employment exposes them to the possibility of radiation injury. Our department is composed of 20 international unions, almost every one of which has membership employed in plants of the Atomic Energy Commission. We roughly estimate that over two-thirds of the organized production and maintenance workers at the major AEC installations are members of the unions of our department and its atomic metal trades councils. I will not burden the record by again listing such establishments which I have made a matter of record on numerous previous occasions in hearings before this committee. Most of our affiliates also have substantial numbers employed in the various types of industrial establishments using nuclear materials and radioisotopes in their normal industrial operations. We have carefully examined the testimony being submitted by Andrew J. Biemiller, director of the department of legislation of the AFL-CIO and the metal trades department has joined with the AFL-CIO department of legislation in its preparation. We believe that the testimony of the AFL-CIO as presented by Director Biemiller is both comprehensive and complete. Consequently, we do not feel it necessary to take the time of the committee to reiterate the statements of AFL-CIO policy and the comments and suggestions which we have joined in preparing. We firmly believe that radiation-exposure control must stay with the Federal Government and that it must continue to carry the responsibility for the establishment, modification, and enforcement of adequate health and safety regulations not only in its own plants but wherever there is any possibility of any of our citizens being exposed to radiation hazards of any type. Our department emphatically subscribes to the principle that restrictions must be applied first and the occupational hazards must be proven out before there is any relaxation of restrictions. In this connection the procedures which are established must be those that leave the least possible room for human errors in judgment and they must be closely applied at all times. In its own plants, the Government holds and should continue to exercise the unquestioned authority to direct and control the practice of full-scale radiation safety by its operating contractors. In private plants using radioisotopes or other nuclear materials the situation is far more complex, and has been made even more so by the passage of Public Law 86-373 last year, allowing for the turnover to the States of many of the regulatory functions which the AEC has up to now been charged with. The proper exercise of these regulatory functions must not be relaxed through transfer of the same to various of the States as allowed by Public Law 86-373. The adequacy of the conditions attached to the license when issued, the competency of the user, the frequency and thoroughness of periodic inspections by fully qualified inspectors, the enforcement of adequate monitoring and reporting procedures, and the provision for prompt and effective action to suspend or cancel licenses must, in no event, be sacrificed in order to allow a State to assume these responsibilities instead of the AEC. We again point up the great need for workers to be properly and thoroughly advised, through conspicuously posted notices prepared by the Government, of the conditions under which their employer's license was issued, the procedures applicable to the license, the safety practices, devices, controls, etc., which their employer must provide to insure their protection from radiation injury. Such notices should also advise the workers of their rights to obtain their own exposure records at any time, and of their employer's obligation to automatically supply them with such record upon any overexposure and at least once each 6 months. These notices should advise employees of the location and telephone number of the Government-inspection office where complaints of violations can be filed and they should be fully protected against discharge or discrimination for filing a complaint or giving information to such inspection authority. We are pleased to note that AEC is presently considering such matter for inclusion in its long-delayed proposed revision of its part 20 regulations. Similar posting requirements also should be an integral prerequisite of any contemplated State regulatory program. The question of inspection, the frequency of inspection for the various types of licensees, the number and qualification of inspectors, the results of inspections and the degree of compliance obtained should all be closely examined by the committee. The existing AEC internal inspection program and its inspection procedures and practices followed by its inspection division in checking on AEC licensees should be fully reported to and made a matter of record with this committee. With these brief comments may I again point out that the metal trades department concurs in the comprehensive statement of the director of the AFL-CIO legislative department, Andrew Biemiller, who does speak for the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations. It is the policy of the metal trades department to conform to the position of the AFL-CIO which all affiliated organizations are committed to observe. With kind appreciation to the committee for allowing us to enter this brief statement in its record, and with all best wishes for the success of this hearing, I remain Sincerely, J. A. BROWNLOW, President. Representative HOSMER. Our next witness is Elda E. Anderson, president of the Health Physics Society. You may proceed. STATEMENT OF ELDA E. ANDERSON,1 PRESIDENT, HEALTH PHYSICS SOCIETY Dr. ANDERSON. I am speaking for the Health Physics Society on radiation protection criteria and standards; their basis and use. Objectives of the Health Physics Society are to aid in the work of health physics, to improve dissemination of information between individuals in this field and related fields, to improve public understanding of the problems and needs in radiation protection and to promote and improve health physics as a profession. These objec 1Dr. Elda E. Anderson received her A.B. degree from Ripon College at Ripon, Wis. Her M.A. and Ph. D. degrees in physics were earned at the University of Wisconsin. She has served as dean of the Estherville Junior College, Estherville, Iowa; as a member of the summer faculty at the University of Wisconsin; and as professor of physics at Milwaukee-Downer College and at Milwaukee State Teachers College (now thê University of Wisconsin in Milwaukee). Dr. Anderson spent 3 years during the war and for several months thereafter in research for the Office of Scientific Research and Development at Princeton University and with the Manhattan project at the Los Alamos Laboratory. She was among the first scientists tives are accomplished by meetings, conferences, and publications with emphasis on all sciences which contribute to the knowledge of radiation effects and radiation protection. The society, since its formation in June 1956, has shown steady growth and now has a membership in excess of 1,300. The Health Physics Society is the main focal point for health physics both in this country and abroad. Perhaps it would be well to start with the definition of a health physicist. A health physicist is a person engaged in the study of the problems and practice of providing radiation protection. He is concerned with an understanding of the mechanisms of radiation damage, with the development and implementation of methods and procedures necessary to evaluate radiation hazards and with providing protection to man and his environment from unwarranted radiation exposure. Thus, a health physicist is vitally interested in radiation protection criteria and standards-their basis and use. Forty-five percent of the members of the main committee of the National Committee on Radiation Protection are members of the Health Physics Society, and the chairmen of 8 of the 13 subcommittees, as well as a large percentage of the members of these subcommittees, are members of the society. Four of the 13 members of the main committee of the International Commission on Radiological Protection are members of the society. The Chairman, Dr. R. M. Sievert of Sweden, is a member of the board of directors of the society. We also have two directors of the IAEA who are members. The society publishes the Health Physics Journal in which have appeared many articles on radiation protection criteria, their application to specific situations, and the requirements that they place on instruments. The society has served as one of the important media for attracting people into the field of health physics. One of the early standing committees of the society was the certification committee organized to study the certification of health physicists. As in any relatively new profession, where the demand for qualified personnel is greater than the supply, unqualified people have taken positions for which they have insufficient education and training. In the matter of radiation protection, the risks to workers, the public and environment are too great for incompetence to be tolerated. The certification committee, after studying the problems of certification over a period of several years, recommended the establishment of the American Board of Health Physics. Qualifications for a certified health physicist have been published, and procedures for certification have been established by this board. I have attached a list of the qualifications for a certified health physicist. (The list is as follows:) QUALIFICATIONS FOR A CERTIFIED HEALTH PHYSICIST 1. Academic.-The applicants must have a bachelor's degree in either a physical or biological science with a major in physics or a major in chemistry, engineering or biology with a strong minor in physics. In exceptional cases, persons who have demonstrated adequate knowledge of health physics but who are deficient in the formal requirements above may, at the discretion of the board, be permitted to substitute experience for academic requirements. |