THE UNITED STVTES i:\VIRO\\IF-\TVI. PKOTI «Tl ION \(,KNC'>
J_Ul
111
o
fldDim
Statutes and Legislative Historv
Execu I ire Order*
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
55
I
01
O
-------
-------
340R73114
THE UNITED STATES. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Statutes and Legislative History
Executive Orders
Regulations
Guidelines and Reports
\
01
55
\
JANUARY 1973
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
-------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402
Price $6.65 per 3 volume set. Sold in sets only.
Stock Number 5500-0067
-------
FOREWORD
It has been said that America is like a gigantic boiler in that
once the fire is lighted, there are no limits to the power it can
generate. Environmentally, the fire has been lit!
With a mandate from the President and an aroused public
concern over the environment, we are experiencing a new Amer-
ican Revolution, a revolution in our way of life. The era which
began with the industrial revolution is over and things will never
be quite the same again. We are moving slowly, perhaps even
grudgingly at times, but inexorably into an age when social,
spiritual and aesthetic values will be prized more than production
and consumption. We have reached a point where we must bal-
ance civilization and nature through our technology.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, formed by Re-
organization Plan No. 3 of 1970, was a major commitment to this
new ethic. It exists and acts in the public's name to ensure that
due regard is given to the environmental consequences of actions
by public and private institutions.
In a large measure, this is a regulatory role, one that en-
compasses basic, applied, and effects research; setting and en-
forcing standards; monitoring; and making delicate risk-benefit
decisions aimed at creating the kind of world the public desires.
The Agency was not created to harass industry or to act as a
shield behind which man could wreak havoc on nature. The
greatest disservice the Environmental Protection Agency could
do to American industry is to be a poor regulator. The environ-
ment would suffer, public trust would diminish, and instead of
free enterprise, environmental anarchy would result.
It was once sufficient that the regulatory process produce wise
and well-founded courses of action. The public, largely indifferent
to regulatory activities, accepted agency actions as being for the
"public convenience and necessity." Credibility gaps and cynicism
make it essential not only that today's decisions be wise and
well-founded but that the public know this to be true. Certitude,
not faith, is de rigueur.
In order to participate intelligently in regulatory proceedings,
the citizen should have access to the information available to the
agency. EPA's policy is to make the fullest possible disclosure of
iii
-------
information, without unjustifiable expense or delay, to any in-
terested party. With this in mind, the EPA Compilation of Legal
Authority was produced not only for internal operations of EPA,
but as a service to the public, as we strive together to lead the
way, through the law, to preserving the earth as a place both
habitable by and hospitable to man.
WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
IV
-------
PREFACE
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970 transferred 15 governmental
units with their functions and legal authority to create the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Since only the major laws were
cited in the Plan, the Administrator, William D. Ruckelshaus,
requested that a compilation of EPA legal authority be researched
and published.
The publication has the primary function of providing a work-
ing- document for the Agency itself. Secondarily, it will serve as
a research tool for the public.
A permanent office in the Office of Legislation has been estab-
lished to keep the publication updated by supplements.
It is the hope of EPA that this set will assist in the awesome
task of developing a better environment.
MARY LANE REED WARD GENTRY, J.D.
Assistant Director for Field Operations
Office of Legislation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The idea of producing a compilation of the legal authority of
EPA was conceived and commissioned by William D. Ruckelshaus,
Administrator of EPA. The production of this compilation in-
volved the cooperation and effort of numerous sources, both
within and outside the Agency. The departmental libraries at
Justice and Interior were used extensively; therefore we ex-
press our appreciation to Marvin P. Hogan, Librarian, Depart-
ment of Justice; Arley E. Long, Land & Natural Resources
Division Librarian, Department of Justice; Frederic E. Murray,
Assistant Director, Library Services, Department of the Interior.
For exceptional assistance and cooperation, my gratitude to:
Gary Baise, formerly Assistant to the Administrator, currently
Director, Office of Legislation, who first began with me on this
project; A. James Barnes, Assistant to the Administrator; K.
Kirke Harper, Jr., Special Assistant for Executive Communica-
tions; John Dezzutti, Administrative Assistant, Office of Execu-
tive Communications; Roland 0. Sorensen, Chief, Printing
Management Branch, and Jacqueline Gouge and Thomas Green,
Printing Management Staff; Ruth Simpkins, Janis Collier, Wm.
Lee Rawls, Peter J. McKenna, James G. Chandler, Jeffrey D.
Light, Randy Mott, Thomas H. Rawls, John D. Whittaker, Linda
L. Payne, Dana W. Smith, and John M. Himmelberg, a beautiful
staff who gave unlimited effort; and to many others behind the
scenes who rendered varied assistance.
MARY LANE REED WARD GENTRY, J.D.
Assistant Director for Field Operations
Office of Legislation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
The goal of this text is to create a useful compilation of the
legal authority under which the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency operates. These documents are for the general use of
personnel of the EPA in assisting them in attaining the pur-
poses set out by the President in creating the Agency. This work
is not intended and should not be used for legal citations or any
use other than as reference of a general nature. The author dis-
claims all responsibility for liabilities growing out of the use of
these materials contrary to their intended purpose. Moreover, it
should be noted that portions of the Congressional Record from
the 92nd Congress were extracted from the "unofficial" daily ver-
sion and are subject to subsequent modification.
EPA Legal Compilation consists of the Statutes with their
legislative history, Executive Orders, Regulations, Guidelines and
Reports. To facilitate the usefulness of this composite, the Legal
Compilation is divided into the eight following chapters:
A. General E. Pesticides
B. Air F. Radiation
C. Water G. Noise
D. Solid Waste H. International
RADIATION
The chapter labeled "Radiation" and color coded tan contains
the legal authority of the Agency as it applies to radiation pol-
lution abatement. It is well to note that any law which is appli-
cable to more than one chapter of the Compilation will appear in
each of the chapters; however, its legislative history will be cross
referenced into the "General" chapter where it is printed in full.
SUBCHAPTERS
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
For convenience, the Statutes are listed throughout the Com-
pilation by a one-point system, i.e., 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc., and Legisla-
tive History begins wherever a letter follows the one-point
system. Thusly, any l.la, Lib, 1.2a, etc., denotes the public laws
comprising, the 1.1, 1.2 statute. Each public law is followed by its
vii
-------
viii INSTRUCTIONS
legislative history. The legislative history in each case consists of
the House Report, Senate Report, Conference Report (where
applicable), the Congressional Record beginning with the time
the bill was reported from committee.
Example:
1.1 1954 Atomic Energy Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§2013 (d), 2021, 2051,
2073 (b), (e), 2092, 2093, 2099, 2111, 2112, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2139, 2153,
2201, 2210 (1970).
l.la Atomic Energy Act of 1946, August 1, 1946, P.L. 79-585, 60 Stat.
755.
(1) Senate Special Committee on Atomic Energy, S. REP. No.
1211, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. (1946).
(2) House Committee on Military Affairs, H.R. REP. No. 2478,
79th Cong., 2d Sess. (1946).
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2670, 79th Cong.,
2d Sess. (1946).
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 93 (1946) :
(a) June 1: Passed Senate, pp. 6076-6098;
(b) July 16: House disagrees to Senate bill, pp. 9135-
9144;
(c) July 17, 18, 19, 20: House debates and amends Senate
bill, pp. 9249-9275, 9340-9386, 9463-9477, 9545-9563;
(d) July 22: Senate disagrees with House bill, asks for
conference, pp. 9609-9611;
This example not only demonstrates the pattern followed for
legislative history, but indicates the procedure where only one
section of a public law appears. You will note that the Congres-
sional Record cited pages are only those pages dealing with the
discussion and/or action taken pertinent to the section of law
applicable to EPA. In the event there is no discussion of the
pertinent section, only action or passage, then the asterisk (*) is
used to so indicate, and no text is reprinted in the Compilation.
In regard to the situation where only one section of a public law is
applicable, then only the parts of the report dealing with same are
printed in the Compilation.
SECONDARY STATUTES
Many statutes make reference to other laws and rather than
have this manual serve only for major statutes, these secondary
statutes have been included where practical. These secondary
statutes are indicated in the table of contents to each chapter by
a bracketed cite to the particular section of the major act which
made the reference.
CITATIONS
The United States Code, being the official citation, is used
throughout the Statute section of the Compilation.
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
IX
TABLE OF STATUTORY SOURCE
Statutes
1.1 1954 Atomic Energy Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §§2013(d),
2012, 2051, 2073(b), (e), 2092,
2093, 2099, 2111, 2112, 2131, 2133,
2134, 2139, 2153, 2201, 2210
(1970).
1.2 Public Health Service Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §§203, 215,
241, 242(b), (c), (d), (f), (i),
(j), 243, 244, 244a, 245, 246, 247
(1970).
1.3 Public Contracts, Advertisements
for Proposals for Purchases and
Contracts for Supplies or
Services for Government Depart-
ments; Application to Govern-
ment Sales and Contracts to Sell
and to Government Corporations,
as amended, 41 U.S.C. §5 (1958).
1.4 Research and Development Act,
Contracts, as amended, 10 U.S.C.
§§2353, 2354 (1956).
1.5 International Health Research
Act, 22 U.S.C. §2101 (1960).
1.6 Per Diem, Travel and Transpor-
tation Expenses; Experts and
Consultants; Individuals Serving
Without Pay, as amended, 5
U.S.C. §5703 (1966).
1.7 The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §3254f
(1970).
1.8 National Environmental Policy
Act, 42 U.S.C. §§4332(2) (c),
4344(5) (1970).
Source
Direct reference in Reorg. Plan
No. 3 of 1970.
Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1970.
Referred to in Public Health
Service Act at §242c(e).
Referred to in Public Health
Service Act at §241 (h).
Referenced to in the Public
Health Service Act at §242f(a).
Referenced to in Public Health
Service Act at §242f(b) (5), (6).
Section cited refers directly to
national disposal sites for storage
and disposal of hazardous waste
including radioactivity.
Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1970.
EXECUTIVE ORDERS
The Executive Orders are listed by a two-point system (2.1, 2.2,
etc.). Executive Orders found in General are ones applying to
more than one area of the pollution chapters.
REGULATIONS
The Regulations are noted by a three-point system (3.1, 3.2,
etc.). Included in the Regulations are those not only promulgated
by the Environmental Protection Agency, but those under which
the Agency has direct contact.
-------
x INSTRUCTIONS
GUIDELINES AND REPORTS
This subchapter is noted by a four-point system (4.1, 4.2, etc.).
In this subchapter is found the statutorily required reports of
EPA, published guidelines of EPA, selected reports other than
EPA's and interdepartmental agreements of note.
UPDATING
Periodically, a supplement will be sent to the interagency dis-
tribution and made available through the U.S. Government Print-
ing Office in order to provide an accurate working set of EPA
Legal Compilation.
-------
F. RADIATION
Volume I
Page
1. STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 1
1.1 1954 Atomic Energy Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§2013 (d),
2021, 2051, 2073(b), (e), 2092, 2093, 2099, 2111, 2112, 2132,
2133, 2134, 2139, 2153, 2201, 2210 (1970) 3
l.la Atomic Energy Act of 1946, August 1, 1946, P.L. 79-585,
60 Stat. 755-756, 758-766, 770-771, 774 38
(1) Senate Special Committee on Atomic Energy, S.
REP. No. 1211, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. (1946) 53
(2) House Committee on Military Affairs, H.R. REP.
No. 2478, 79th Cong., 2d Sess. (1946) 77
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2670,
79th Cong., 2d Sess. (1946) 85
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 93 (1946):
(a) June 1: Passed Senate, pp. 6082-6085, 6087-
6088, 6094-6098 96
(b) July 16: House disagrees to Senate bill, pp.
9135-9136, 9140-9141 109
(c) July 17, 18, 19, 20: House debates and amends
Senate bill, pp. 9253-9254, 9256, 9263-9270,
9272-9275, 9343-9346, 9355-9367, 9381-9386,
9464-9470, 9552-9662 115
(d) July 22: Senate disagrees with House bill,
asks for conference, p. 9611 209
(e) July 26: House agrees to conference report,
pp. 10192-10199 209
(f) July 26: Senate agrees to conference report,
p. 10168 225
l.lb Atomic Energy Act of 1954, August 30, 1954, P.L.
83-703, §§1, 2, ;!, 31, 53, 62, 63, 69, 81, 102, 103, 104, 109,
123, 161, 68 Stat. 921, 927, 930, 948 225
(1) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, H.R. REP. No.
2181, 83rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1954) 245
(2) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, S. REP. No.
1699, 83rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1954) 298
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2639,
83rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1954) 299
(4) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2666,
83rd Cong., 2d Sess. (1954) 300
(5) Congressional Record, Vol. 100 (1954) :
(a) July 23, 26: Debated, passed House, pp.
11655-11656,11683, 11688-11691,11698-11699,
11713-11715, 11731, 12025 300
xi
-------
xii CONTENTS
Page
(b) July 13-27: Debated, amended, passed Sen-
ate, pp. 10368-10370, 10484-10485, 10563-
10565, 10800-10801, 10804-10806, 10837-
10842, 11527, 11553-11554, 11568, 11826,
12132-12133, 12174, 12242 326
(c) Aug. 9: House agrees to conference report,
pp.13780-13787 376
(d) Aug. 13: Senate rejects conference report,
pp. 14338, 14340-14341, 14343-14347, 14349-
14350, 14352-14353, 14355-14356 391
(e) Aug. 16, 17: Senate and House agree to con-
ference report, respectively, pp. 14603-14606,
14867-14873 416
l.lc Amendments to Atomic Energy Act of 1954, July 14,
1956, P.L. 84-722, 70 Stat. 553 436
(1) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, H.R. REP.
No. 2431, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. (1956) 437
(2) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, S. REP. No.
2384, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. (1956) 444
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 102 (1956) :
(a) June 26: Passed House, pp. 11004-11005 452
(b) July 3: Passed Senate, p. 11719 453
l.ld 1956 Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
August 6, 1956, P.L. 84-1006, §§2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 70 Stat.
1069, 1071 454
(1) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, S. REP. No.
2530, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. (1956) 455
(2) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, H.R. REP. No.
2695, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. (1956) 459
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 102 (1956) :
(a) July 18: Passed Senate, p. 13255 459
(b) July 26: Passed House, pp. 14888-14891 460
l.le 1957 Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
August 21, 1957, P.L. 85-162, Title II, §§201, 204, 71
Stat. 410 464
(1) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, H.R. REP. No.
978, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. (1957) 465
(2) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, S. REP. No.
791, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. (1957) 466
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1204,
85th Cong., 1st Sess. (1957) 466
-------
CONTENTS xiii
Volume II
Page
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 103 (1957) :
(a) Aug. 9: Amended and passed House, p.
14261* 467
(b) Aug. 16: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
15056, 15057 467
(c) Aug. 20: Conference report submitted in Sen-
ate and agreed to, p. 15316 470
(d) Aug. 20: Conference report submitted in
House and agreed to, p. 15392 470
l.lf Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Sep-
tember 2, 1957, P.L. 85-256, §§2, 4, 71 Stat. 576 470
(1) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, S. REP. No.
296, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. (1957) 474
(2) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, S. REP. No.
435, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. (1957) 475
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 103 (1957) :
(a) July 1: Passed House, p. 10725 475
(b) Aug. 16: Passed Senate, p. 15059* 476
(c) Aug. 19: House concurred in Senate amend-
ment, p. 15183* 476
l.lg Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, September 4, 1957, P.L. 85-287, §4, 71 Stat.
613 476
(1) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, H.R. REP.
No. 977, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. (1957). 476
(2) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, S. REP. No.
790, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. (1957) 477
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 103 (1957) :
(a) Aug. 26: Passed House, p. 15969 477
(b) Aug. 29: Passed Senate, p. 16496* 479
l.lh Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, July 2, 1958, P.L. 85-479, §§3, 4, 72 Stat. 277. 479
(1) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, H.R. REP. No.
1849, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958) 480
(2) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, S. REP. No.
1654, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958) 496
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2051,
85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958). 497
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 104 (1958) :
(a) June 19: Debated and passed House, pp.
11779, 11781-11782, 11784 498
(b) June 23: Amended and passed Senate, pp.
11926-11928 505
(c) June 27: Conference report submitted in
House and agreed to, p. 12560* 510
(d) June 30: Conference report submitted in Sen-
ate and agreed to, p. 12587* 510
l.li Government Employees Training Act, July 7, 1958, P.L.
85-507, §21 (b) (1), 72 Stat. 337 510
-------
xiv CONTENTS
Page
(1) Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, S. REP.
No. 213, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. (1957) 511
(2) Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, H.R.
REP. No. 1951, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958) 513
(3) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 103 (1957), April 12: Objected to,
amended and passed Senate, pp. 5580-f5581,
5607 515
(b) Vol. 104 (1958), June 26: Amended and
passed House, p. 12384 520
(c) Vol. 104 (1958), June 27: Senate concurs with
House amendment, p. 12464.* 522
l.lj Amendment to Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
August 8, 1958, P.L. 85-602, §§2, 2[3], 72 Stat. 525. ... 522
(1) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, S. REP. No.
1883, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958) 526
(2) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, H.R. REP.
No. 2253, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958) 530
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 104 (1958) :
(a) July 28: Passed Senate, p. 15233 530
(b) July 29: Passed House, p. 15459 531
l.lk Amendments to Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, August 19, 1958, P.L. 85-681, §§2, 4, 6, 7, 72
Stat. 632 533
(1) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, H.R. REP.
No. 2272, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958) 535
(2) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, S. REP. No.
1944, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958) 548
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 104 (1958) :
(a) July 29 : Passed House, p. 15488 549
(b) Aug. 5: Passed Senate, p. 16189.* 551
1.1Z Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, August 23, 1958, P.L. 85-744, 72 Stat. 837. . . 551
(1) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, H.R. REP.
No. 2250, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958) 552
(2) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, S. REP. No.
1882, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958) 559
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2585,
85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958) 560
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 104 (1958) :
(a) July 29: Passed House, p. 15457* 564
(b) Aug. 5: Amended and passed Senate, p. 16188 564
(c) Aug. 14: Conference report submitted in
House and agreed to, p. 17641* 564
(d) Aug. 14: Conference report submitted in Sen-
ate and agreed to, p. 17569.* 564
l.lm Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, September 21, 1959, P.L. 86-300, §1, 73 Stat.
574 565
(1) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, S. REP. No.
871, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959) 565
-------
CONTENTS xv
Page
(2) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, H.R. REP.
No. 1124, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959) 571
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 105 (1959) :
(a) Sept. 9: Passed Senate, p. 18732 s 574
(b) Sept. 11: Passed House, p. 19169.* 574
l.ln Amendments to Atomic Energy Act of 1954, September
23, 1959, P.L. 86-373, §1, 73 Stat. 688 574
(1) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, S. REP. No.
870, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959) 579
(2) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, H.R. REP.
No. 1125, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959) 599
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 105 (1959) :
(a) Sept. 11: Passed Senate, pp. 19042-19046 ... 614
(b) Sept. 11: Passed House, pp. 19169-19170. ... 622
l.lo Amendment to Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
September 6, 1961, P.L. 87-206, §§13, 15, 75 Stat. 478. . 625
(1) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, H.R. REP. No.
963, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961) 625
(2) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, S. REP. No.
746, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961) 632
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 107 (1961) :
(a) Aug. 22: Passed House, p. 16611* 633
(b) Aug. 24: Passed Senate, p. 16957.* 633
l.lp To Amend the Tariff Act of 1930, and Certain Related
Laws, May 24, 1962, P.L. 87-456, Title III, §303 (c), 76
Stat. 78 633
(1) House Committee on Ways and Means, H.R. REP.
No. 1415, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962) 634
(2) Senate Committee on Finance, S. REP. No. 1317,
87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962) 635
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 108 (1968) :
(a) March 14: Passed House, p. 4067* 635
(b) April 17: Amended and passed Senate, p.
6794* 635
(c) May 9: House concurs with Senate amend-
ment, p. 8010.* 636
l.lq To Amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
August 29, 1962, P.L. 87-615, §§6, 7, 9, 12, 76 Stat. 410. 636
(1) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, S. REP. No.
1677, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962) 637
(2) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, H.R. REP.
No. 1966, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962) 642
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 108 (1962) :
(a) Aug. 7: Passed Senate, p. 15746 643
(b) Aug. 15: Passed House, p. 16551.* 645
l.lr To Adjust Postal Rates, October 11, 1962, P.L. 87-793,
§1001 (g), 76 Stat. 864 645
(1) House Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
H.R. REP. No. 1155, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961). 646
(2) Senate Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
S. REP. No. 2120, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962). ... 647
-------
xvi CONTENTS
Page
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2525,
87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962) 648
(4) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 2532,
87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962) 649
(5) Congressional Record, Vol. 108 (1962):
(a) Jan. 24: Passed House, p. 827" 650
(b) Sept. 27: Amended and passed Senate, p.
21014* 650
(c) Oct. 3: Senate agrees to conference report,
p. 22027* 650
(d) Oct. 4: Senate agrees to conference report,
p. 22232* 650
(e) Oct. 5: House agrees to conference report,
p. 22602 650
l.ls To Amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
August 1, 1964, P.L. 88-394, §§2, 3, 78 Stat. 376 652
(1) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, S. REP. No.
1128, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964) 653
(2) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, H.R. REP.
No. 1525, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964) 660
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 110 (1964) :
(a) July 8: Debated, passed Senate, pp. 16100-
16101 664
(b) July 21: Debated, passed House, pp. 16474,
16476, 16478-16479 667
l.lt 1964 Amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
August 26, 1964, P.L. 88-489, §§3, 5-8, 15, 16, 78 Stat.
602 670
(1) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, S. REP. No.
1325, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964) 674
(2) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, H.R. REP.
No. 1702, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964) 682
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 110 (1964) :
(a) Aug. 6: Passed Senate, p. 18434* 684
(b) Aug. 18: Passed House, p. 20145.* 684
l.lu To Amend Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, September 29, 1965, P.L. 89-210,
§§1-5, 79 Stat. 855 684
(1) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, S. REP. No.
650, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965) 687
(2) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, H.R. REP.
No. 883, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965) 711
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. Ill (1965) :
(a) Aug. 31: Passed Senate, p. 22281* 711
(b) Sept. 16: Debated and passed House, pp.
24035-24049 711
l.lv To Amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
October 13, 1966, P.L. 89-645, §§1 (b), 2, 3, 80 Stat. 891. 742
(1) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, S. REP. No.
1605, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 745
(2) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, H.R. REP.
No. 2043, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966) 788
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 112 (1966) :
(a) Sept. 22: Passed Senate, pp. 23633-23634 789
-------
CONTENTS xvii
Page
(b) Sept. 30: Passed House, pp. 24635-24637. ... 792
l.lw To Amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
December 14,1967, P.L. 90-190, §§9,10,11, 81 Stat. 577. 798
(1) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, S. REP. No.
743, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967) 800
(2) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, H.R. REP.
No. 911, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967) 809
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 113 (1967) :
(a) Nov. 15: Passed Senate, p. 32583* 810
(b) Nov. 30: Passed House, pp. 34398-34399,
34403 810
l.lx Atomic Energy Act Amendments, December 19, 1970,
P.L. 91-560, §§1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 84 Stat. 1472, 1474 816
(1) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, H.R. REP.
No. 91-1470, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 817
(2) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, S. REP. No.
91-1247, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 868
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970) :
(a) Sept. 30: Considered and passed House, pp.
H9442, H9452 869
(b) Dec. 2: Considered, amended and passed Sen-
ate, pp. S19252-S19257 895
(c) Dec. 3: House agrees to Senate amendments,
pp. H11086-H11087 908
l.ly Atomic Energy Commission Appropriation Authori-
zation, August 11, 1971, P.L. 92-84, Title II, §201, 85
Stat. 307 911
(1) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, H.R. REP.
No. 92-325, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971) 911
(2) Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, S. REP. No.
92-249, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971) 913
(3) Congressional Record, Vol. 117 (1971) :
(a) July 15: Considered and passed House, pp.
H6764, H6801 914
(b) July 20: Considered and passed Senate,
amended, p. S11502* 914
(c) July 27: House concurred in Senate amend-
ments with amendment, p. H7189* 914
(d) July 31: Senate concurred in House amend-
ment, p. S12694." 914
1.2 Public Health Service Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §§203,
215, 241, 242b, 242c, 242d, 242f, 242i, 242j, 243, 244, 244a,
245, 246, 247 (1970) 915
(See, "General 1.12a-1.12ah" for legislative history)
1.3 Public Contracts, Advertisements for Proposals for Pur-
chases and Contracts for Supplies or Services for Govern-
ment Departments; Application for Government Sales and
Contracts to Sell and to Government Corporations, as
amended, 41 U.S.C. §5 (1958) 946
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §242c(e)]
(See, "General 1.14a-1.14c" for legislative history)
1.4 Research and Development Act, Contracts, as amended, 10
U.S.C. §§2353, 2354 (1965) 947
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §241 (h) ]
-------
xviii CONTENTS
Volume III
Page
1.4a Armed Forces Research and Development, July 16,
1952, P.L. 82-577, §§4, 5, 66 Stat. 725 949
(1) House Committee on Armed Services, H.R. REP.
No. 548, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. (1951) 951
(2) Senate Committee on Armed Services, S. REP.
No. 936, 82d Cong., 1st Sess. (1951) 952
(3) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 97 (1951), Aug. 2: Passed House, p.
9433 955
(b) Vol. 98 (1952), July 3: Amended and passed
Senate, pp. 9053-9054* 955
(c) Vol. 98 (1952), July 4: House concurs in
Senate amendments, pp. 9374-9375.* 955
1.4b Armed Services Procurement Amendments of 1956,
August 10, 1956, P.L. 84-1028, §§2353, 2354, 70A
Stat. 134 955
(1) House Committee on the Judiciary. H.R. REP.
No. 970, 84th Cong., 1st Sess. (1955) 957
(2) Senate Committee on the Judiciary, S. REP. No.
2484, 84th Cong., 2d Sess. (1956) 960
(3) Congressional Record:
(a) Vol. 101 (1955), Aug. 1: Amended and
passed House, pp. 12718-12719* 962
(b) Vol. 102 (1956), July 23: Amended and
passed Senate, p. 13953* 962
(c) Vol. 102 (1956), July 25: House concurs in
Senate amendments, p. 14455.* 962
1.5 International Health Research Act, 22 U.S.C. §2101 (1960). 963
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §242f (a)]
1.5a Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, September 4, 1961,
P.L. 87-195, Pt. I, §241, 75 Stat. 433 964
(1) Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, S. REP.
No. 612, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961) 964
(2) House Committee on Foreign Affairs, H.R. REP.
No. 851, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961) 965
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1088,
87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961) 971
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 107 (1961):
(a) Aug. 16: Passed Senate, p. 16411* 972
(b) Aug. 17: Amended and passed House, p.
16501" 972
(c) Aug. 31: Senate agrees to conference re-
port, p. 17712"- 972
(d) Aug. 31: House agrees to conference re-
port, p. 17862.* 972
1.5b Foreign Assistance Act of 1963, December 16, 1963,
P.L. 88-205, Pt. I, §105, 77 Stat. 382 972
(1) House Committee on Foreign Affairs, H.R. REP.
No. 646, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963) 973
-------
CONTENTS xix
Page
(2) Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, S. EEP.
No. 588, 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963) 973
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 1006,
88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963) 975
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 109 (1963) :
(a) Aug. 23: Passed House, p. 15678- 976
(b) Oct. 24, Nov. 15: Debated, amended and
passed Senate, p. 21978 976
(c) Dec. 9: Conference report submitted in
House and agreed to, p. 23850* 977
(d) Dec. 13: Conference report agreed to in
Senate, pp. 24453-24454 977
1.6 Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Expenses; Experts
and Consultants; Individuals Serving Without Pay, as
amended, 5 U.S.C. §5703 (1966) 979
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §242f (b) (5), (6)]
(See, "General 1.15a-1.15d(3) (c)" for legislative history)
1.7 The Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
§3254f (1970) 980
1.7a The Resource Recovery Act of 1970, October 26, 1970,
P.L. 91-512, Title I, §104 (b), 84 Stat. 1233 981
(1) House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Com-
merce, H.R. REP. No. 91-1155, 91st Cong., 2d
Sess. (1970) 982
(2) Senate Committee on Public Works, S. REP. No.
91-1034, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 983
(3) Committee of Conference, H.R. REP. No. 91-
1579, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970) 985
(4) Congressional Record, Vol. 116 (1970) :
(a) June 23: Passed House, p. 20893* 986
(b) Aug. 3: Considered, amended and passed
Senate, p. 26942 '•'• 986
(c) Oct. 7: Senate agreed to conference report,
pp. 35511, 35516-" 986
(d) Oct. 13: House agreed to conference report
p. 36587.* 986
1.8 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C.
§§4332(2) (c), 4344(5) (1970) 987
(See, "General 1.2a-1.2a(4) (e)" for legislative history)
2. EXECUTIVE ORDERS 989
2.1 E.O. 10831, Establishment of the Federal Radiation Council,
August 14, 1959, 24 Fed. Reg. 6669 (1959) 991
3. REGULATIONS 993
EPA's Office of Radiation Programs has not promulgated any
regulations. Guidelines for Uranium Miner Exposure are found
under the "Guidelines and Reports" section. Reorganization Plan
No. 3 of 1970 transferred to EPA certain powers previously held
by the Atomic Energy Commission. EPA is currently establish-
ing a viable "interface" with the AEG. AEC regulations which
EPA is reviewing are those that deal with releases of radiation
to the environment and are currently found under Title 10 of the
-------
xx CONTENTS
Page
Code of Federal Regulations. Chapters of particular interest
are ch. 20 ("Standards for Protection Against Radiation"), and
ch. 30 ("Rules of General Applicability to Licensing of Byprod-
uct Material") 995
4. GUIDELINES AND REPORTS 997
4.1 Background Material for the Development of Radiation Pro-
tection Standards, Staff Report of the Federal Radiation
Council 999
4.1a Background Material for the Development of Radiation
Protection Standards, Report No. 1, Staff Report of the
Federal Radiation Council, May 13, 1960 999
4.1a(l) Radiation Protection Guidance for Federal
Agencies (Memorandum for the President),
Federal Radiation Council, May 18, 1960, 25
Fed. Reg. 4402 (1960) 1053
4.1b Background Material for the Development of Radiation
Protection Standards, Report No. 2, Staff Report of the
Federal Radiation Council, September 1961 1059
4.1b(l) Radiation Protection Guidance for Federal
Agencies (Memorandum for the President),
Federal Radiation Council, September 26, 1961,
26 Fed. Reg. 9057 (1961) 1087
4.1c Health Implications of Fallout From Nuclear Weapons
Testing Through 1961, Report No. 3 of the Federal
Radiation Council, May 1962 1093
4.1d Estimates and Evaluation of Fallout in the United
States from Nuclear Weapons Testing Conducted
Through 1962, Report No. 4 of the Federal Radiation
Council, May 1963 1100
4.1e Background Material for the Development of Radiation
Protection Standards, Report No. 5, Staff Report of the
Federal Radiation Council, July 1964 1134
4.1e(l) Radiation Protection Guidance for Federal
Agencies (Memorandum to the President),
Federal Radiation Council, August 22, 1964, 29
Fed. Reg. 12056 (1964) 1149
4.1f Revised Fallout Estimates for 1964-65 and Verification
of the 1963 Predictions, Report No. 6, Staff Report of
the Federal Radiation Council, May 1965 1152
4.1g Background Material for the Development of Radiation
Protection Standards, Protective Action Guides for
Strontium-89, Strontium-90 and Cesium-137, Report
No. 7, Staff Report of the Federal Radiation Council,
May 1965 1174
4.1g(l) Radiation Protection Guidance for Federal
Agencies (Memorandum to the President),
Federal Radiation Council, May 22, 1965, 30
Fed. Reg. 6953 (1965) 1212
4.1h Guidance for the Control of Radiation Hazards in Ura-
nium Mining, Report No. 8, Staff Report of the Federal
Radiation Council, September 1967 1221
-------
CONTENTS xxi
Page
4.1h(l) Radiation Protection Guidance for Federal
Agencies (Memorandum to the President),
Federal Radiation Council, August 1, 1967, 32
Fed. Reg. 11183 (1967) 1273
4.2 Selected Reports 1277
4.2a Pathological Effects of Thyroid Irradiation, Federal
Radiation Council, Revised Report—December 1966. 1277
4.2b Radiation Exposure of Uranium Miners, Report of an
Advisory Committee from the Division of Medical
Sciences: National Academy of Sciences—National
Research Council—National Academy of Engineering,
Federal Radiation Council, August 1968 1292
4.2c Implication to Man of Irradiation by Internally De-
posited Strontium-89, Strontium-90, and Cesium-137,
Report of an Advisory Committee from the Division of
Medical Sciences: National Academy of Sciences—
National Research Council, Federal Radiation Council,
December 1964 1324
4.2d An Estimate of Radiation Doses Received by Individ-
uals Living in the Vicinity of a Nuclear Reprocessing
Plant in 1968, Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, May 1970 1362
4.2e Liquid Waste Effluents from a Nuclear Fuel Reprocess-
ing Plant, Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, November 1970 1380
4.3 Uranium Miners Exposure Guidelines 1419
4,3a Radiation Protection Guidelines, Federal Radiation
Council, January 15, 1969, 34 Fed. Reg. 576 (1969). . . 1419
4.3b Radiation Protection Guidelines, Federal Radiation
Council, December 18, 1970, 35 Fed. Reg. 19218 (1970). 1420
4.3c Radiation Protection Guidance, Underground Mining
of Uranium Ore, Environmental Protection Agency,
May 25, 1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 9480 (1971) 1422
4.3d Radiation Protection Guidance, Underground Mining
of Uranium Ore, Environmental Protection Agency,
July 9, 1971, 36 Fed. Reg. 1292 (1971) 1430
-------
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
467
l.le(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 103 (1957)
l.le(4)(a) Aug. 9: Amended and Passed House, p. 14261
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.le(4)(b) Aug. 16: Amended and Passed Senate, pp. 15056,15057
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I offer
an amendment, which has been dis-
cussed with members of the Joint Com-
mittee and to which the Senator from
Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER] has agreed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the reading of
the amendment be dispensed with and
that the text of the amendment be
printed in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GORE'S amendment is as fol-
lows:
On page 17, line 24, add the following- new
sections:
"SEC. 201. Section 161e of the Atomic En-
ergy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended
by adding after the words 'adjusted terms
which' in the proviso thereof, the following:
' (at the time of the initial grant of any
privilege grant, lease, or permit, or renewal
thereof, or in order to avoid inequities or undue
hardship prior to the sale by the United States
of property affected by such grant)'.
"SEC. 202. Section 35 of the Atomic Energy
Community Act of 1955, as amended, is amended
by adding thereto:
" 'c. The appraised value of the Govern-
ment's interest in commercial property shall,
in the cases where renegotiation of the lease
is requested by the lessee under the provisions
of section 161e, of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, be based upon the renego-
tiated lease if any is agreed on. Where such
renegotiations are requested, the sales pro-
ceedings shall not be initiated until the com-
pletion of the renegotiation.'
"SEC. 203. The Atomic Energy Commission,
the Federal Housing Administration, and the
Housing and Home Finance Agency shall re-
port to the Joint Committee by January 31,
1958, with respect to the renegotiations, re-
appraisals, and sales proceedings authorized
under sections 201 and 202 of this act.
"SEC. 204. Section 161 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, is amended by adding
the following new subsection:
" 's. Under such regulations and for such
periods and at such prices the Commission
may prescribe, the Commission may sell or
contract to sell to purchasers within Commis-
sion-owned communities or in the immediate
vicinity of the Commission community, as the
case may be, any of the following utilities and
related services, if it is determined that they
are not available from another local source and
that the sale is in the interest of the national
defense or in the public interest:
" '(1) Electric power.
'"(2) Steam.
" '(3) Compressed air.
" '(4) Water.
" '(5) Sewage and garbage disposal.
" ' (6) Natural, manufactured, or mixed gas.
"'(7) Ice.
" '(8) Mechanical refrigeration.
" '(9) Telephone service.
" 'Proceeds of sales under this subsection
shall be credited to the appropriation currently
available for the supply of that utility or service.
To meet local needs the Commission may make
minor expansions and extensions of any dis-
tributing system or facility within or in the
immediate vicinity of a Commission-owned
community through which a utility or service is
furnished under this subsection.' "
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. As I un-
derstand, the amendment refers to the
settlement of some community property
problems we had under discussion. I
personally believe they should be set-
tled, and the amendment provides the
only vehicle whereby that can be done.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
The amendment of the Senator from
Tennessee [Mr. GORE] was agreed to.
Mr. BIBLE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that a statement I
have prepared concerning the atomic
reactor problem in the State of Nevada
be printed at this point in the RECORD.
-------
468
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
There l3eing no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT BY SENATOR BIBLE
Since the inception of nuclear tests au-
thorized by our Government at the Nevada test
site in southern Nevada, the residents of my
State of Nevada have been more than coopera-
tive.
The first atomic blast at the Nevada test site
was conducted on January 27, 1951. This fol-
lowed a single test in New Mexico on July 16,
1945. The entire Nation has focused its eyes on
Nevada, as test after test, and blast after blast
have occurred. In the 5 series of tests since the
original shot in 1951, 45 atomic blasts in all have
been the total result of nuclear tests in Nevada.
Starting with the current series of tests early
this spring, some 15 tests have been made, 4 of
which, were not nuclear.
The series has not yet ended. More are to
come.
As I stated before, the residents of Nevada
have been cooperative with the United States
Government in keeping their objections to a
minimum. This has not come about by the
mere fact that they have felt they are secure
from all danger; but has been more from the
fact that they realize the importance of the
testing progi'am; the importance to our entire
Nation and ,to the world. They fully realize
that if the United States is to keep pace in the
atomic weapons field and if the United States
is to use the scientific knowledge at its disposal
in this field that the tests are necessary. The
residents of Nevada are peaceful people. They
want our Government to have the means with
which it can keep the peace of the world. How-
ever, I am certain that Nevada residents do not
want Nevada to become the dumping grounds
for the Atomic Energy Commission's experi-
mental weapons program.
They would much prefer that the Atomic
Energy Commission displayed some interest
in establishing peaceful nuclear reactors of some
type, which would insure a normal and peaceful
growth for the State and thereby assist us in
establishing industry for which our State is in
such dire need.
In other words, Nevadans and myself, speak-
ing as their elected representative, feel that the
time is long overdue for recognition to our
State by the Atomic Energy Commission, in
establishing an atomic reactor for power pur-
poses or for the establishment of experimental
laboratories in our State university at some
other site which would give our Nation and
State a part in the important peaceful adapta-
tion of nuclear energy.
The State of Nevada is one of the fastest
growing States in the Union.
We need power.
Our water resources are limited.
We are ideally situated for the establishment
of a nuclear reactor, from which we could
obtain needed requirements in electrical energy.
We have great wealth in the manner of min-
erals. We have ample transportation facilities.
We are situated near heavily populated areas.
We have enterprising residents, who want to
see their State grow and prosper and attract
industry. We cannot do this without ample
power.
I am sure the majority of this body is well
aware of the tremendous cost of establishing
nuclear power facilities. This is one reason
why private enterprise has been slow in de-
veloping nuclear reactors and power plants.
Conventional plants are less costly.
Small power firms in Nevada do not have at
their disposal men who are qualified to outline
and draw plans for negotiating contracts with
the Atomic Energy Commission or with industry
to the point where they can give the necessary
information for acquiring assistance needed to
establish and construct nuclear power facilities.
They are qualified in their particular field of
generating power by other means. They are
interested in the nuclear field and they need the
assistance that is offered in this bill now before
the Senate.
They realize nuclear power plants in Nevada
will hurdle the obstacles of a shortage of water
and high-cost fuel. They are also cognizant of
the high costs involved in nuclear power.
There are two points which I want to convey
to this body and I feel that both can be stated
in simple words.
First, if the State of Nevada can bear the
brunt of atomic blasts and a necessary testing
program for nuclear weapons in carrying out
the policy of our Government under the terms
of laws and provisions at the command of the
Atomic Energy Commission and its purview
by the President, then the Atomic Energy Com-
mission should also awaken to the needs of State
and direct some effort toward establishing a
portion of its experimental work along peace-
ful lines, such as a nuclear reactor in a section
of Nevada to be chosen at the Commission's
direction.
Second, I sincerely hope that this body will
adopt measures to implement the present
Atomic Energy Act, whereby a simplification
of procedure will result, thereby allowing small
privately owned ov publicly owned power com-
panies to compete in the construction of nuclear
power reactors with material assistance from
the United States Government,
[p. 15056]
Mr. BIBLE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that an editorial
from the Mineral County Independent,
of Hawthorne, Nev., under date of Au-
gust 7, 1957, dealing with the same
general problem, be printed at this
point in the RECORD.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
469
There being no objection, the edi-
torial was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
[From the Mineral County Independent,
Hawthorne, Nev., of August 7, 1957]
Causing almost as much rumble as the atomic-
bomb blast itself is the growing demand for at
Jeast a temporary halt of all nuclear-bomb tests.
Wh^le the World Council of Churches was
recommending this at a central council com-
mittee meeting in New Haven, Conn., another
organized group, with temporary headquarters
in Las Vegas, was carrying on an active pro-
gram of protest against further tests at the
atom test site in southern Nevada.
In fact, 11 demonstrators from th :s group
were arrested Tuesday as they attempted to
enter the test site as a protest action.
For several weeks there has been much writ-
ten about such planned demonstrations, and also
about the AEC's intention to make arrests for
trespass and also about the stringing of barbed-
wire barriers and posting of armed guards.
And all of this is going on within the boun-
daries of the sovereign State of Nevada, not in
Washington, D. C., or some isolated Pacific
island.
Which causes us to assert that it is high time
our United States Senators and Congressmen,
and even our Governor, speak up—in audible
and firm voice—to the AEC.
Again we say that if Nevada is to be used
as dumping ground for the Atomic Energy
Commission's experimental program, this State
should also receive first consideration as the
location for some of the more permanent types
of atomic research—such as nuclear powerplants
now being tested in several other States.
Based upon what little information the AEC
is willing to release (about the developments at
these various test plants) there is more reason
than ever to insist that one such plant be estab-
lished in the vicinity of Schurz. The Govern-
ment owns a vast amount of land in that area;
there is the "river of water" that is so fre-
quently referred to as a necessity.
And there is a great potential outlet for power
—Mason Valley (with Anaconda and other
mines) to the west; Nevada Scheelite (mine and
carbide plant) and Gabbs (with its large mining
and milling operations) to the east; Fallon
(with the big expansion program at the naval
air station) to the north; and Mineral county
(with the huge naval installation at Hawthorne,
and mining and industrial potential) to the
south.
Franchise right of the privately and mu-
nicipally owned power systems in these areas
could be guaranteed through initial agreements
and contracts, just as is done where large dams
are built by the Government as a part of
reclamation projects.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill is open to further amendment. If
there be no amendment to be proposed,
the question is on the engrossment and
third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading and was read the
third time.
Mr. ANDERSON. There is on the
calendar, Calendar No. 870, H. R. 8996,
and I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to the consideration of
that bill; that all after the enacting
clause be stricken; that the text of the
Senate bill, as amended, be inserted in
lieu thereof; and that the Senate bill
be indefinitely postponed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
House bill will be stated by title for the
information of the Senate.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A
bill (H. R. 8996) to authorize approp-
riations for the Atomic Energy Com-
mission in accordance with section 261
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
Without objection, the bill is amended
by striking out all after the enacting
clause and substituting in lieu therefor
the text of S. 2674, as amended.
The amendment was ordered to be
engrossed, and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time,
and passed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
Without objection, S. 2674 is indef-
initely postponed.
Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, I
move that the Senate insist upon its
amendment, request a conference there-
on with the House of Representatives,
and that the Chair appoint the con-
ferees on the part of the Senate.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Presiding Officer appointed Mr. AN-
DERSON, Mr. RUSSELL, Mr. PASTORE, Mr.
GORE, Mr. JACKSON, Mr. HICKEN-
LOOPER, Mr. KNOWLAND, Mr. BRICKER,
and Mr. DWORSHAK conferees on the
part of the Senate.
[p. 15057]
-------
470
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
l.le(4)(c) Aug. 20: Conference report submitted in Senate and agreed
to, p. 15316
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the confer-
ence report.
The report was agreed to.
[p. 15316]
l.le(4)(d) Aug. 20: Conference report submitted in House and agreed
to, p. 15392
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the conference report.
The conference report was agreed to
and a motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
*
* *
[p. 15392]
l.lf AMENDMENTS TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT
OF 1954
September 2, 1957, P.L. 85-256, §§2, 4, 71 Stat. 576
SEC. 2. Subsection 53 e. (8) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended, is amended to read as follows:
"(8) except to the extent that the indemnification and lim-
itation of liability provisions of section 170 apply, the licensee
will hold the United States and the Commission harmless
from any damages resulting- from the use or possession of
special nuclear material by the licensee."
SEC. 4. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended
by adding thereto a new section, with the appropriate amendment
to the table of contents:
"SEC. 170. INDEMNIFICATION AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.—
"a. Each license issued under section 103 or 104 and each
construction permit issued under section 185 shall, and each
license issued under section 53, 63, or 81 may, have as a con-
dition of the license a requirement that the licensee have and
maintain financial protection of such type and in such
amounts as the Commission shall require in accordance with
[p. 576]
subsection 170 b, to cover public liability claims. Whenever
such financial protection is required, it shall be a further
condition of the license that the licensee execute and maintain
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 471
an indemnification agreement in accordance with subsection
170 c. The Commission may require, as a further condition
of issuing a license, that an applicant waive any immunity
from public liability conferred by Federal or State law.
"b. The amount of financial protection required shall be the
amount of liability insurance available from private sources,
except that the Commission may establish a lesser amount on
the basis of criteria set forth in writing, which it may revise
from time to time, taking into consideration such factors as
the following: (1) the cost and terms of private insurance,
(2) the type, size, and location of the licensed activity and
other factors pertaining to the hazard, and (3) the nature
and purpose of the licensed activity: Provided, That for fa-
cilities designed for producing substantial amounts of elec-
tricity and having a rated capacity of 100,000 electrical
kilowatts or more, the amount of financial protection re-
quired shall be the maximum amount available from private
sources. Such financial protection may include private in-
surance, private contractual indemnities, self insurance, other
proof of financial responsibility, or a combination of such
measures.
"c. The Commission shall, with respect to licenses issued be-
tween August 30, 1954, and August 1, 1967, for which it re-
quires financial protection, agree to indemnify and hold
harmless the licensee and other persons indemnified, as their
interest may appear, from public liability arising from nu-
clear incidents which is in excess of the level of financial pro-
tection required of the licensee. The aggregate indemnity for
all persons indemnified in connection with each nuclear in-
cident shall not exceed $500,000,000 including the reasonable
costs of investigating and settling claims and defending suits
for damage. Such a contract of indemnification shall cover
public liability arising out of or in connection with the licensed
activity.
"d. In addition to any other authority the Commission may
have, the Commission is authorized until August 1, 1967, to
enter into agreements of indemnification with its contractors
for the construction or operation of production or utilization
facilities or other activities under contracts for the benefit of
the United States involving activities under the risk of public
liability for a substantial nuclear incident. In such agree-
ments of indemnification the Commission may require its con-
tractor to provide and maintain financial protection of such a
type and in such amounts as the Commission shall determine
-------
472 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
to be appropriate to cover public liability arising out of or in
connection with the contractual activity, and shall indemnify
the persons indemnified against such claims above the amount
of the financial protection required, in the amount of $500,-
000,000 including the reasonable costs of investigating and
settling claims and defending suits for damage in the aggre-
gate for all persons indemnified in connection with such con-
tract and for each nuclear incident. The provisions of this
subsection may be applicable to lump sum as well as cost type
contracts and to contracts and projects financed in whole or
in part by the Commission.
"e. The aggregate liability for a single nuclear incident of
persons indemnified, including the reasonable costs of investi-
gating and settling claims and defending suits for damage,
shall not exceed the sum of $500,000,000 together with the
[p. 577]
amount of financial protection required of the licensee or con-
tractor. The Commission or any person indemnified may
apply to the appropriate district court of the United States
having venue in bankruptcy matters over the location of the
nuclear incident, and upon a showing that the public liability
from a single nuclear incident will probably exceed the limit
of liability imposed by this section, shall be entitled to such
orders as may be appropriate for enforcement of the pro-
visions of this section, including an order limiting the liability
of the persons indemnified, orders staying the payment of
claims and the execution of court judgments, orders appor-
tioning the payments to be made to claimants, orders permit-
ting partial payments to be made before final determination
of the total claims, and an order setting aside a part of the
funds available for possible latent injuries not discovered un-
til a later time.
"f. The Commission is authorized to collect a fee from all
persons with whom an indemnification agreement is executed
under this section. This fee shall be $30 per year per thou-
sand kilowatts of thermal energy capacity for facilities li-
censed under section 103. For facilities licensed under section
104, and for construction permits under section 185, the
Commission is authorized to reduce the fee set forth above.
The Commission shall establish criteria in writing for deter-
mination of the fee for facilities licensed under section 104,
taking into consideration such factors as (1) the type, size,
and location of facility involved, and other factors pertaining
to the hazard, and (2) the nature and purpose of the facility.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 473
For other licenses, the Commission shall collect such nominal
fees as it deems appropriate. No fee under this subsection
shall be less than $100 per year.
"g. In administering the provisions of this section, the Com-
mission shall use, to the maximum extent practicable, the fa-
cilities and services of private insurance organizations, and
the Commission may contract to pay a reasonable compensa-
tion for such services. Any contract made under the provi-
sions of this subsection may be made without regard to the
provisions of section 3709 of the Revised Statutes, as
amended, upon a showing by the Commission that advertising
is not reasonably practicable and advance payments may be
made.
"h. The agreement of indemnification may contain such
terms as the Commission deems appropriate to carry out the
purposes of this section. Such agreement shall provide that,
when the Commission makes a determination that the United
States will probably be required to make indemnity payments
under this section, the Commission shall collaborate with any
person indemnified and may approve the payment of any claim
under the agreement of indemnification, appear through the
Attorney General on behalf of the person indemnified, take
charge of such action, and settle or defend any such action.
The Commission shall have final authority on behalf of the
United States to settle or approve the settlement of any such
claim on a fair and reasonable basis with due regard for the
purposes of this Act. Such settlement may include reasonable
expenses in connection with the claim incurred by the person
indemnified.
"i. After any nuclear incident which will probably require
payments by the United States under this section, the Com-
mission shall make a survey of the causes and extent of dam-
age which shall forthwith be reported to the Joint Committee,
and, except as forbidden by the provisions of chapter 12 of
this Act or any other law or Executive order, all final findings
[p. 578]
shall be made available to the public, to the parties involved
and to the courts. The Commission shall report to the Joint
Committee by April 1, 1958, and every year thereafter on
the operations under this section.
"j. In administering the provisions of this section, the Com-
mission may make contracts in advance of appropriations and
incur obligations without regard to section 3679 of the Re-
-------
474 LEGAL COMPILATION — RADIATION
vised Statutes, as amended.
*****
Approved September 2, 1957.
[p. 579]
l.lf(l) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
S. REP. No. 296, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. (1957)
AMENDING THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS
AMENDED
MAY 9, 1957.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. ANDERSON, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 2051]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered the
subject matter of the amendment to the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 to protect the public by providing governmental indemnity
and granting limitation of liability for persons in the atomic en-
ergy program, by establishing the Committee on Reactor Safe-
guards as a statutory committee, and by requiring publication of
its safety reports and public hearings on certain facility license
applications, report an original bill S. 2051 and recommend that
the bill do pass.
BACKGROUND
When the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 was passed, it was the
hope of Congress that the provisions in the laws liberalizing the
statutory restrictions which had hitherto given the Government a
monopoly in the atomic energy field would encourage the entrance
of private industry into the program, and speed the further devel-
opment of the peaceful uses of atomic energy.
It was brought to the attention of the Joint Committee in the
1956 hearings, which the Joint Committee is required to hold
under section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, that the prob-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
475
lem of possible liability in connection with the operation of re-
actors is a major deterrent to further industrial participation in
the program. While the 202 hearings held in 1957 indicate that
it may not be the most important deterrent—that appears to be
the current lack of economic incentive—the problem of liability
has become a major roadblock.
% :Ł ^ ;& # % %
[P- 1]
Section 2 modifies the clause in the section of the Atomic En-
ergy Act of 1954 relating to the conditions which are attached to
the license for special nuclear material. Up to now, this clause
required the licensee to hold the United States harmless from the
use of the special nuclear material. Now there has been an ex-
ception written into the clause with respect to those portions of
this bill, whereby the United States agrees to indemnify the li-
censee and permit limitation of liability proceedings. The excep-
tion was written in this manner since the provisions of the bill
with respect to indemnity have a 10-year period of operation at this
time. It was not intended by the language of this exception that
the licensee would have to complete the limitation and indemnifica-
tion of liability proceedings before this section applied.
[p. 15]
l.lf(2) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
S. REP. No. 435, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. (1957)
The Senate Report is the same as the House Report.
l.lf(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 103 (1957)
l.lf(3)(a) July 1: Passed House, p. 10725
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the engrossment and third reading of
the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time and was read the
third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
The bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
[p. 10725]
-------
476 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
l.lŁ(3)(b) Aug. 16: Passed Senate, p. 15059
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lf(3)(c) Aug. 19: House concurred in Senate amendment, p. 15183
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lg AMENDMENTS TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF
1954, AS AMENDED
September 4, 1957, P.L. 85-287, §4, 71 Stat. 613
SEC. 4. Section 161 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended by inserting after the words "scientific and
technical personnel" the words: "up to a limit of $19,000)".
Approved September 4, 1957.
l.lg(l) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
H.B. REP. No. 977, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. (1957)
AMENDING THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS
AMENDED
AUGUST 2, 1957.— Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. DURHAM, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H. R. 8994]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered H.
R. 8994, an original committee bill, to amend the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, to increase the salaries of certain execu-
tives of the Atomic Energy Commission, and for other purposes,
does report favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do
pass.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
477
PURPOSE
The purpose of this recommended legislation is to equalize the
salaries of Atomic Energy Commission executives with those of
other executives in the executive branch and in the independent
agencies, as provided by the Federal Executive Pay Act of 1956
(Public Law 854, 84th Cong., 2d sess.).
*******
[p. 1]
Section 4 of the bill would amend section 161d of the Atomic En-
ergy Act of 1954, as amended, to provide a limitation of $19,000
on the salaries payable to "scientific and technical personnel" un-
der that section. In the past, the Commission has used this section
to provide top salaries for such persons as the Deputy and Assist-
ant General Manager, and the manager of certain field operations
offices, and since such positions are receiving the requested in-
crease in salaries as provided by sections 2 and 3 of this bill, the
Joint Committee felt that a limitation could properly be put on the
maximum salaries payable under section 161d. Although the com-
mittee recognizes that it is important to the successful operation
of the Commission to be able to obtain first rate scientific and tech-
nical persons, the committee believes that such persons should not
receive salaries in excess of that of the program division directors,
whose salary is to be a maximum of $19,000.
*******
[p. 7]
l.lg(2) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
S. REP. No. 790, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. (1957)
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
The Senate Report is the same as the House Report.
l.lg(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 103 (1957)
l.lg(3)(a) Aug. 26: Passed House, p. 15969
AMENDING ATOMIC ENERGY ACT
Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent for the present con-
sideration of the bill (H. R. 8994) to
amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended, to increase the salaries of
certain executives of the Atomic En-
ergy Commission, and for other pur-
poses.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
-------
478
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the present consideration of the bill?
Mr. COLE. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, I assume the gentle-
man from North Carolina will, of
course, explain the bill. There is no
opposition to the bill from this side.
Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Speaker, the
purpose of this bill, as set forth in the
report of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy—House Report No. 977
—is to equalize the salaries of the
Atomic Energy Commission executives
with those of other executives in the
executive branch and in the independ-
ent agencies.
Last year Congress enacted the Fed-
eral Executive Pay Act of 1956. This
act raised the salaries of executives
generally in the executive branch and
in the independent agencies except for
the Atomic Energy Commission.
The purpose of this bill is to provide
equal treatment of the executives of the
Atomic Energy Commission as has al-
ready been granted to other executives
by the Federal Executive Pay Act of
1956.
The background of this bill is set
forth in the committee report—House
Report No. 977.
Last year the Joint Committee unani-
mously recommended a salary bill for
AEC executives, contingent upon pas-
sage of the Federal Executive Pay Act,
but that act passed late in the session,
and the AEC salary bill was not con-
sidered by the Congress. This year the
Joint Committee again considered the
question and has recommended unani-
mously this legislation to bring the
AEC executives up to the same salary
levels as those of other executives.
This bill raises the salary of the
Chairman of the Commission from
$20,000 per annum to $22,500 per an-
num, which is on the same level as the
Under Secretary of State and the
Deputy Secretary of Defense. Prior
to the Federal Executive Pay Act of
1956, the Chairman of the Commission
was on the same level with those other
offices, but he is now receiving a lesser
salary. The purpose of this bill is to
equalize this situation.
Other salaries of AEC executives are
raised as follows:
The other four Commissioners of the
Atomic Energy Commission, from $18,-
000 to $22,000; the general manager,
who is the chief executive officer, from
$20,000 to $22,000; the division direc-
tors from $16,000 to $19,000; the gen-
eral counsel from $16,000 to $19,500.
The bill also established the position
of deputy general manager at maxi-
mum salary of $20,500; three assistant
general managers or their equivalent
at maximum salary of $20,000; and a
maximum of six other executive man-
ager positions at a salary not to exceed
$19,000 per annum.
All of these increases are entirely
consistent with the provisions of last
year's Federal Executive Pay Act, and
are only intended to provide fair and
equal treatment to AEC executives.
I do not need to emphasize to the
Members of the House the tremendous
importance of the work of the Atomic
Energy Commission. It must carry out
enormous responsibilities for our mili-
tary atomic and hydrogen weapons, and
also in our expanding program for the
peaceful uses of atomic energy, both at
home and abroad. It is important that
the Commission be able to obtain first
rate executives and scientists to lead it.
Some of its key employees, including
the Director of the Division of Re-
search, have left the Commission to re-
spond to more attractive offers, from a
financial standpoint, from private in-
dustry.
Also, the Commission is planning to
move in about 6 months to new head-
quarters building near Germantown,
Md., about 30 miles outside of Wash-
ington. I fear that they will lose many
employees, including some of their top
executives. In order to try to prevent
this loss, and to provide fair treatment
to AEC executives who are now re-
ceiving less than other executives in our
Federal Government, I urge the House
to favorably enact H. R. 8994, in ac-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
479
cordance with the unanimous recom-
mendation of the members of the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the present consideration of the bill ?
There being no objection, the Clerk
read the bill, as follows:
*****
SEC. 4. Section 161d. of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, is amended by insert-
ing after the words "scientific and technical
personnel" the words: "up to a limit of
$19,000)."
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the
third time, and passed, and a motion
to reconsider was laid on the table.
[p. 15969]
l.lg(3) (b) Aug. 29: Passed Senate, p. 16496
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lh AMENDMENTS TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT
OF 1954, AS AMENDED, JULY 2, 1958
P.L. 85-479, §§3, 4, 72 Stat. 277
SEC. 3. Subsection 123 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 123. COOPERATION WITH OTHER NATIONS.—No coopera-
tion with any nation or regional defense organization pursuant to
section 54, 57, 64, 82, 91, 103, 104, or 144 shall be undertaken
until—
"a. the Commission or, in the case of those agreements for co-
operation arranged pursuant to subsection 91 c. or 144 b. which
are to be implemented by the Department of Defense, the De-
partment of Defense has submitted to the President the proposed
agreement for cooperation, together with its recommendations
thereon, which proposed agreement shall include (1) the terms,
conditions, duration, nature, and scope of the cooperation; (2) a
guaranty by the cooperating party that security safeguards and
standards as set forth in the agreement for cooperation will be
maintained; (3) except in the case of those agreements for co-
operation arranged pursuant to subsection 91 c. a guaranty by the
cooperating party that any material to be transferred pursuant to
such agreement will not be used for atomic weapons, or for re-
search on or development of atomic weapons or for any other mil-
itary purpose; and (4) a guaranty by the cooperating party that
any material or any Restricted Data to be transferred pursuant
to the agreement for cooperation will not be transferred to un-
authorized persons or beyond the jurisdiction of the cooperating
party, except as specified in the agreement for cooperation;".
-------
480 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
SEC. 4. Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended in subsection b. by deleting the word "and"
at the end thereof; in subsection c. by changing the period at the
end thereof to a semicolon and inserting thereafter "and;"; and by
adding the following new subsection:
"d. the proposed agreement for cooperation, together with the
approval and determination of the President, if arranged pursuant
to subsection 91 c., 144 b., or 144 c., has been submitted to the
Congress and referred to the Joint Committee and a period of sixty
days has elapsed while Congress is in session, but any such pro-
posed agreement for cooperation shall not become effective if dur-
ing such sixty-day period the Congress passes a concurrent
resolution stating in substance that it does not favor the proposed
agreement for cooperation: Provided, however, That during the
Eighty-fifth Congress such period shall be thirty days (in comput-
ing such sixty days, or thirty days, as the case may be, there shall
be excluded the days on which either House is not in session be-
cause of an adjournment of more than three days)."
LP- 277]
l.lh(l) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
H.B. REP. No. 1849, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958)
AMENDMENT TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954,
AS AMENDED
JUNE 5, 1958.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. DURHAM, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H. R. 12716]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered H.
R. 12716, an original committee bill to amend the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, reports favorably thereon without
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 481
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
The proposed legislation, as recommended by the Joint Commit-
tee, amends the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to per-
mit, subject to certain conditions, limitations, and procedures,
greater exchange with military allies of information and materials
as follows:
1. MSterial, including non-nuclear parts of weapons, military
reactors, and nuclear materials for use in military reactors and
weapons (sec. 91c);
2. Classified information (restricted data) of a nature to assist
an individual nation or regional defense group such as NATO to
improve its training and prepare for mutual defense (sec. 144b);
and
3. Classified information (restricted data) of a nature to assist
another individual nation to improve its atomic weapon design,
development or fabrication capability, and concerning military
reactors (sec. 144c).
Conditions, limitations and procedures.—The proposed legisla-
tion provides certain conditions, limitations, and procedures prior
to and during such exchange of information and materials as
follows:
1. Subsections 91c, 144b and 144c all provide that such coopera-
tion can take place only after a Presidential determination that it
[p. 1]
will promote and will not constitute an unreasonable risk to the
common defense and security;
2. Subsections 91c, 144b and 144c all provide that such coopera-
tion can take place only while the cooperating nation or regional
defense organization is participating with the United States pur-
suant to an international arrangement by substantial and material
contributions to the mutual defense and security;
3. Subsections 91c, 144b and 144c all provide that such coopera-
tion can be undertaken only pursuant to an agreement entered into
in accordance with section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended.
Section 123b, in turn, requires Presidential approval before ex-
ecution of any proposed agreement or amendment, and also the
President's determination in writing that the performance of the
proposed agreement will promote and will not constitute an un-
reasonable risk to the common defense and security.
New subsection 123d, added by section 4 of this bill, also pro-
-------
482 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
vides that a proposed agreement arranged pursuant to subsection
91c, 144b or 144c must be submitted to the Congress and referred
to the Joint Committee and not become effective if the Congress
passes a concurrent resolution of disapproval within 60 days (30
days during the 85th Cong.).
The Congress and the Joint Committee will therefore have an
opportunity to review each proposed agreement to implement the
authority granted by this bill, and will furthermore have the op-
portunity to pass a concurrent resolution of disapproval to prevent
such a proposed agreement from becoming effective if such is the
will of the Congress.
In addition, under section 202 of the Atomic Energy Act, it is
intended that the Joint Committee shall be kept fully and currently
informed as to each step taken under an agreement after it is ex-
ecuted and becomes effective.
Other provisions.—The proposed legislation, in addition to the
principal amendments to sections 91, 144b and c, and 123, as dis-
cussed above, contains technical or conforming amendments to the
following sections of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended:
Section 92 (sec. 2 of the bill); section 123a (sec. 3 of the bill); and
section 144a (sec. 5 of the bill). It also adds a new subsection
144d to the Atomic Energy Act to permit the President to
authorize another Government agency, in addition to the Atomic
Energy Commission and the Department of Defense, to commu-
nicate restricted data to another nation, under certain conditions,
limitations, and procedures.
A more detailed description of each section of the proposed leg-
islation is contained in the section-by-section analysis, infra in this
report.
BACKGROUND
On October 25, 1957, President Eisenhower and British Prime
Minister Macmillan, having met in Washington, D. C., as repre-
sentatives of their respective nations issued a joint communique in
which they stated that their two countries will henceforth act in
accordance with the following principle:
The arrangements which the nations of the free world
have made for collective defense and mutual help are
[p. 2]
based on the recognition that the concept of nation self-
sufficiency is now out of date. The countries of the free
world are interdependent and only in genuine partner-
ship, by combining their resources and sharing tasks in
many fields, can progress and safety be found.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 483
Among the various understandings reached by the Prime Min-
ister and the President was that—
The President of the United States will request the
Congress to amend the Atomic Energy Act as may be
necessary and desirable to permit of close and fruitful
collaboration of scientists and engineers of Great Britain,
the United States, and other friendly countries.
On January 9, 1958, the President of the United States in his
state of the Union message to Congress, recognized the need for
greater pooling of scientific talent among the nations of the free
world and stated:
It is of the highest importance that the Congress enact
the necessary legislation to enable us to exchange appro-
priate scientific and technical information with friendly
countries as part of our effort to achieve effective sci-
entific cooperation.
It is wasteful in the extreme for friendly allies to con-
sume talent and money in solving problems that their
friends have already solved—all because of artificial
barriers to sharing. We cannot afford to cut ourselves
off from the brilliant talents and minds of scientists in
friendly countries. The task ahead will be hard enough
without handcuffs of our own making.
The groundwork for this kind of cooperation has al-
ready been laid in discussion among NATO countries.
Promptness in following through with legislation will be
the best possible evidence of American unity of purpose
in cooperating with our friends.
On January 27, 1958, Mr. Lewis L. Strauss, Chairman of the
Atomic Energy Commission, submitted to the Congress and to the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy proposed amendments to the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to meet the objectives previously out-
lined by the President and recommended that they receive early
consideration. (The full test of Chairman Strauss' letter ex-
plaining the proposed amendments and the reasons therefor is
contained in appendix A.)
In view of the importance of the proposed legislation, Senator
Pastore, on January 28, 1959, the day following receipt of the
proposal, introduced, by request and without endorsement or
criticism, S. 3165. On January 29, 1958, Congressman Durham
introduced H. R. 10348, also by request and without endorse-
ment or criticism. These two bills which were referred to the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy contained the specific pro-
posed amendments recommended by the Chairman of the Atomic
-------
484 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
Energy Commission. The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
chairman immediately referred the bills to the Subcommittee on
Agreements for Cooperation, which began hearings in executive
session on January 29, 1958.
[p. 3]
On the basis of discussions during the executive hearings the
proposed amendment to section 55 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 was eliminated from consideration in this bill. This amend-
ment would have permitted the AEC to set up a revolving fund
of indefinite amount in excess of $200 million to finance long-term
commitments for purchase of foreign special nuclear material.
The Commission by letter dated March 7, 1958, notified the Joint
Committee that it was withdrawing that proposal in view of the
committee's opposition to it. Accordingly, Chairman Durham and
Senator Pastore by request on March 13, 1958, introduced H. R.
11426 and S. 3474 in their respective Houses, which bills were
identical with the proposed amendments originally requested by
AEC Chairman Strauss in his January 27, 1958, letter, with the
exception of the proposed amendment to section 55.
After extensive hearings in executive session and discussions
between the committee members and staff with representatives
from the Atomic Energy Commission, the Department of State,
and the Department of Defense, and as a result of a meeting of the
subcommittee on May 27, 1958 Senator Pastore and Senator
Hickenlooper, on May 28, 1958, jointly introduced a clean bill S.
3912. An identical clean bill, H.R. 12716, was introduced on May
28, 1958, by Chairman Durham. Congressman Van Zandt, on
May 28, 1958, also introduced an identical bill, H. R. 12727. After
consideration by the Subcommittee on Agreements for Cooperation
and the full Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, S. 3912 and H. R.
12716 were voted to be reported favorably with a recommendation
that they be passed.
EXECUTIVE HEARINGS
Because of the highly classified nature of the subject matters
involved in the proposed legislation and in order that the com-
mittee members would have the benefit of all possible information
concerning the need for the proposed amendments, the Subcom-
mittee, on Agreements for Cooperation, of necessity, held a major
portion of its hearings in executive session. The Joint Committee
rnembers were thus able to discuss fully and completely with
witnesses from the executive branch of the Government the sensi-
tive information involved, which would not have been possible in
open hearings.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 485
Executive hearings commenced on January 29, 1958, 2 days
after receipt of the original proposed amendments. As is custom-
ary with all subcommittees of the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy, all members of the full committee, whether or not mem-
bers of the subcommittee, were invited to attend and participate
in the subcommittee meetings. Witnesses and representatives
from the interested executive department agencies testified in
executive session on the following dates: January 29, 30, and 31;
February 4, 5, and 27; March 15 and 27; May 15 and 28, 1958.
These hearings involved over 30 hours of oral testimony con-
sisting of over 1,000 pages, which testimony is on file with the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, under appropriate security
safeguards.
In recognition of the importance of the matters discussed in ex-
ecutive session to the American public, as well as to all the peoples
of the free world, the committee desired that to the maximum ex-
[P. 4]
tent possible consistent with national security, the testimony be
made public. With this in mind, all testimony taken in executive
session was submitted to the executive agencies concerned with a
request that the testimony be reviewed for accuracy and for
identification of classified matters. On completion of this review,
all indicated classified information will be removed and the re-
mainder published. The unclassified portions of the executive
session hearings will thus be available to the public along with the
record of the open hearings.
The list of witnesses who testified in executive session before the
Subcommittee on Agreements for Cooperation or who participated
in the executive hearings are as follows:
Us * if * * * *
[p. 5]
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy believes it is not only
desirable but necessary that closer cooperation must exist between
all nations of the free world in both the military and peaceful uses
of atomic energy. Proposed legislation as contained in S. 3912 and
H.R. 12716 has been recommended to achieve this purpose.
The original Atomic Energy Act of 1946, the McMahon Act, first
by interpretation and then by specific amendment in 1951, pro-
hibited the United States from exchanging with any other nation
restricted data on design and fabrication of atomic weapons. It
also prohibited the transfer by the United States to another na-
tion of fissionable material. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
[P. 7]
-------
486 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
recognizing- the need for cooperation with our allies, amended the
law to permit under appropriate safeguards, communication to
another nation or to a regional defense organization certain
information concerning atomic weapons necessary to the develop-
ment of defense plans, the training of personnel and the evalua-
tion of the nuclear weapon capabilities of potential enemies.
Design or fabrication information concerning atomic weapons
which could be communicated was limited to their external char-
acteristics, effects, and the systems employed in their delivery or
use, provided the data did not reveal important information con-
cerning the design or fabrication of their nuclear components.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 also prohibited the transfer to
another nation of any nuclear material for military purposes.
Notwithstanding the limitations imposed by the Atomic Energy
Acts of 1946 and 1954 on the degree to which the United States
could cooperate with its allies, both laws contained provisions rec-
ognizing that future events might necessitate a greater degree of
cooperation. Accordingly, the McMahon Act in section 8 (b) and
the 1954 act in section 121 provided that—
any provision of this Act or any action of the Commission
to the extent and during the time that it conflicts with the
provisions of any international arrangement made after
the date of enactment of this Act shall be deemed to be of
no force or effect.
It was therefore possible under both the present and the prior law
for the United States by means of an international agreement ap-
proved by the Congress or by a treaty ratified by two-thirds of the
Senate to cooperate to the fullest extent possible with an ally. Not
only atomic weapon design information and nuclear material for
use in weapons could thus have been made available to other na-
tions but by this means the law would have permitted the transfer
of atomic weapons by the United States to its allies.
When it recommended the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to super-
sede the original McMahon Act, the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy recognized that changes in the world situation required
revision of the basic law. In recommending the proposed amend-
ments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as contained in the rec-
ommended bills S. 3912 and H. R. 12716, the Joint Committee
continues to recognize changes in world conditions. The com-
mittee supports the principle announced by President Eisenhower
and British Prime Minister Macmillan on October 25, 1957, that—
the arrangements which the nations of the free world
have made for collective defense and mutual help are
based on a recognition that the concept of nation self-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 487
sufficiency is now out of date—
and that—
the countries of the free world are interdependent and
only in genuine partnership, by combining their re-
sources and sharing tasks in many fields, can progress
and safety be found.
[P. 8]
Today three nations in the world have achieved nuclear weapons
capability. They are: the United States, Great Britain, and the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Throughout the hearings
held by the Subcommittee on Agreements for Cooperation, testi-
mony from representatives of the Atomic Energy Commission, the
State Department and the Department of Defense made it clear
that it is not the intent of the proposed amendments to the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 to encourage a "fourth nation" to achieve a
nuclear weapons capability. The Joint Committee is favorably
reporting and recommending S. 3912 and H. R. 12716, original
committee bills, reaffirms the intent not to encourage additional
nations to achieve nuclear weapons capability.
The cooperation between the United States and allies which will
be made possible through the exchange of military information
and material under the proposed amendments would be such as
to conserve the scientific talent of the free world, strengthen our
mutual security, and, it is hoped, would relieve our allies of the
psychological desire to independently embark on their own atomic
weapons program.
Information pertaining to atomic weapons would be exchanged
with our allies under the safeguards contained in the proposed leg-
islation to assist our allies in the training of their military person-
nel and the development of common defense plans. The proposed
legislation will make it possible for the strengthening of NATO.
All cooperation to be undertaken with an ally, made possible by
the recommended bills, requires that such nation must be making
substantial and material contributions to the mutual defense and
security. Before such cooperation can take place additional im-
portant requirements must also be met which are explained fully
in the section-by-section analysis of the bill as set forth in this
report.
The joint committee is of the opinion that closer collaboration
should be had between the United States and Great Britain in the
atomic weapons field. British and American scientists cooperated
during World War II in developing the first atomic weapon. Sub-
sequent to the war, both countries have been working independ-
ently of each other with resulting duplication of scarce scientific
-------
488 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
talent. The proposed legislation will permit the United States,
under appropriate safeguards, to exchange nuclear weapons in-
formation with the British Government in order that each may
have the benefit of the other's knowledge.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended to date, does not
permit transfer of atomic weapons by the United States to another
nation unless such action is taken pursuant to a treaty or by an
international agreement specifically approved by the Congress.
The recommended bills, S. 3912 and H. R. 12716, do not authorize
the transfer of manufactured nuclear components of weapons.
The recommended legislation would however permit greater co-
operation with our allies so that while the United States main-
tains custody and control over the nuclear components, our allies
will be able to have adequate training and knowledge of these
weapons to effectively utilize them against a common enemy in
the event it becomes necessary.
Throughout the hearings and in its deliberations, the joint com-
mittee was mindful of the fact that the amendments originally
proposed by the Atomic Energy Commission might have been
[p. 9]
interpreted in such a way as to enable a "fourth nation" to achieve
a nuclear weapons capability. It was primarily due to this pos-
sibility that the joint committee made certain changes in the
language first recommended by the AEC.
In the proposed legislation submitted by the AEC, section 144c
(1) would have authorized the United States to exchange with an
allied nation restricted data concerning atomic weapons "provided
the communication of such restricted data to that nation is neces-
sary to improve its atomic weapon design, development or fabrica-
tion capability." An additional requirement was added by the
Joint Committee in the form of a proviso that "that nation has
made substantial progress in the development of atomic weapons."
A similar requirement was added by the Joint Committee to sub-
section 91c (4) with regard to the transfer by the United States of
nuclear material to another nation for research on, development
of, or use in atomic weapons. To date only Great Britain can
meet the standards set forth in the proposed subsections 144c (1)
and 91c (4).
As an additional safeguard, the Joint Committee added a new
subsection 123d to require all proposed agreements for coopera-
tion involving transfer of military information or military ma-
terial to be submitted to the Congress and referred to the Joint
Committee. Such proposed agreement shall not become effective
if the Congress passes a concurrent resolution of disapproval
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 489
within a period of 60 days. Thus, the Congress reserves to itself
by this process a share in the responsibility of the dissemination of
this important information and the distribution of this important
material.
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy in compliance with its
duties to the Congress and to the peoples of the United States will
closely and thoroughly review any and all proposed agreements
for cooperation that will be submitted to it pursuant to the amend-
ments contained in this bill. The members of the Joint Committee
are keenly aware of their important responsibilities to the Con-
gress and of the peoples of the United States.
* * * * * * *
[p. 10]
Taken together with the requirements of section 123, the normal
sequence of events to implement a subsection 91c agreement would
be as follows:
1. After negotiating a proposed agreement with a foreign na-
tion, the Commission, or the Department of Defense, would submit
to the President the proposed agreement for cooperation (or
amendment to an existing agreement), together with its recom-
mendation thereon, in accordance with subsection 123a;
2. The President would consider and approve or disapprove,
and, in the event of approval, authorize the execution of the pro-
posed agreement (or amendment) and, in the event of approval,
he would also make a determination in writing that the perform-
ance of the proposed agreement will promote and will not con-
stitute an unreasonable risk to the common defense and security,
in accordance with subsection 123b;
3. The President would approve the terms and conditions of a
program for transfer to the cooperating nation, as required by
subsection 91c;
4. The proposed agreement, together with the approval and the
determination of the President, would be submitted to the Con-
gress and referred to the Joint Committee, and not become
effective if the Congress passes a concurrent resolution of disap-
proval, in accordance with subsection 123d;
5. In implementing the agreement, and prior to transfer of any
materials, the President would determine that the proposed co-
operation and each proposed transfer arrangement will promote
and will not constitute an unreasonable risk to the common de-
fense and security, as required by subsection 91c (this determina-
tion may be delegated, under certain circumstances, by Executive
order, as indicated below).
-------
490 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
As explained in the letter dated January 27, 1958, forwarding
the proposed legislation, it is expected, in the implementation of
last provision referred to above in step (5), that the President
personally will not consider each proposed action under an agree-
ment for cooperation. Instead, an Executive order will be rec-
ommended to the President establishing procedures whereby the
President would authorize proposed transfers only after joint re-
view by the Department of Defense, the Commission and other
interested agencies. The Executive order would authorize such
transfers in the absence of the President's approval only where the
Department of Defense and Commission agree that the proposed
cooperation and the transfer of the material would promote and
would not constitute an unreasonable risk to the common defense
and security. In the event of a disagreement between the two
agencies as to this determination, a proposed transfer could be
made only after the express personal approval of the President.
If the Executive order procedure is to be followed, the Joint
Committee wishes to emphasize that the determinations should not
be made perfunctorily or as a matter of routine. Each determina-
tion (that the proposed cooperation and transfer will promote and
will not constitute an unreasonable risk to the common defense
and security) should be made only after due and careful delibera-
tion both by the AEC and the Department of Defense, and with
[P. 13]
due consideration of the extreme importance which such materials
bear directly to the defense and security of the United States.
Of course, the President would personally approve and authorize
the execution of each new proposed agreement for cooperation or
amendment thereto, and make a determination in writing that the
performance of the proposed agreement will promote and will not
constitute an unreasonable risk to the common defense and se-
curity before an agreement for cooperation can be executed, as
required by existing section 123b of the act.
In connection with the scope of the Presidential determination
the words "each proposed transfer arrangement" are not intended
to make the Presidential determination nondelegable by Executive
order. It is intended that a transfer arrangement may be ap-
proved providing for transfer over a limited period of time of
certain materials and parts, and that the determination need not
be made as to each item (a spare part, for example), transferred
under the transfer arrangement. However, it should be em-
phasized again that the determination should not become a matter
of routine, but should be made separately for each important or
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 491
significant transfer of nonnuclear parts, utilization facilities or
materials.
It is intended that, under section 202 of the act, the Joint Com-
mittee should be kept fully and currently informed as to the scope
and status of each "transfer arrangement" and the transfers made
thereunder.
Participation in an international arrangement
It is provided in subsection 91c that transfers shall be made—
while such other nation is participating with the United
States pursuant to an international arrangement by sub-
stantial and material contributions to the mutual defense
and security.
The term "international arrangement" is defined in section 11-1
of the act. In other words, the other nation must be a close mil-
itary ally. It should be emphasized that the receiving nation must
be making substantial and material contributions to the mutual
defense and security. If the nation is not making such contribu-
tions, any transfer to that nation would, of course, not be
authorized.
Procedure under subsection 123c
All the authority granted by the Congress under subsection 91c
is made subject to the proviso that the cooperation be undertaken
pursuant to an agreement entered into in accordance with section
123. Under the new subsection 123d (to be added by sec. 4 of this
bill) it is provided that each such proposed agreement for co-
operation must be submitted to the Congress and referred to the
Joint Committee for 60 days, and shall not become effective if
during such 60-day period the Congress passes a concurrent res-
olution stating in substance that it does not favor the proposed
agreement for cooperation. (During the 85th Cong, such period
shall be 30 days rather than 60 days.)
*******
[p. 14]
SECTION 8 OF BILL—AMENDMENT TO SECTION 123A OF THE ATOMIC
ENERGY ACT
Section 3 of the bill amends subsection 123a of the Atomic En-
ergy Act of 1954, as amended, in two respects:
First, as a technical amendment, it adds reference to the new
subsection 91c and adds the words "which are to be implemented
by the Department of Defense" to clarify the role of the Depart-
ment of Defense as to agreements for cooperation under subsec-
tion 91c or 144b.
Secondly, and more importantly, it removes the requirement,
-------
492 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
with respect to transfers under subsection 91c, that the receiving
nation guarantee that materials furnished will not be used for
atomic weapons or other military purposes. It accomplishes this
by adding the words "except in the case of those agreements for
cooperation arranged pursuant to subsection 91c" at the beginning
of subsection 123a (3). In lieu of this guaranty by the cooperat-
ing party (which still must be obtained as to transfers under any
section other than 91c), a safeguard is provided in 91c that the
President will determine that the proposed cooperation and trans-
fer "will promote and will not constitute an unreasonable risk to
the common defense and security."
SECTION 4 OF BILL—NEW SUBSECTION 123D OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY
ACT
Section 4 of the bill amends section 123 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, by making technical changes to sub-
sections b and c by adding a new subsection d.
The new subsection 123d provides new procedures to be followed
for proposed agreements for cooperation arranged pursuant to
subsection 91c, l44b, or 144c. It provides that no cooperation with
any nation or regional defense organization shall be undertaken
under those subsections until the proposed agreement for coopera-
tion, together with the approval and determination of the Pres-
ident, has been submitted to the Congress and referred to the Joint
Committee and a period of 60 days has elapsed while Congress is
in session. Section 123d further provides that any such proposed
agreement for cooperation shall not become effective if during such
60-day period the Congress passes a concurrent resolution stating
in substance that it does not favor the proposed agreement for
cooperation. A proviso is added to subsection 123d, however, that
during the 85th Congress, such period shall be 30 days rather than
60 days.
Parenthetically it is added that in computing 60 days, or 30 days,
as the case may be, there shall be excluded the days on which either
House is not in session because of an adjournment of more than 3
days. A similar provision is already found in subsection 123c as
to other proposed agreements for cooperation to be submitted to
the Joint Committee. In counting both the 60- and 30-day periods,
it is intended that the first day to be counted shall be the day fol-
lowing receipt of the proposed agreement by the Joint Committee,
after referral by the Congress.
[P. 16]
It should be noted that subsection 123d applies only to proposed
agreements for cooperation arranged pursuant to subsection 91c,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 493
144b or 144c, the subsections added or modified by this bill which
pertain to military rather than peaceful uses of atomic energy.
Proposed agreements for cooperation, or amendments thereto, ar-
ranged pursuant to any other section of the act, including 54, 57,
64, 82, 103, 104, or 144a, shall be submitted to the Joint Committee
in accordance with past procedure and existing subsection 123c of
the act, providing for a 30-day review period.
In considering the concurrent resolution procedure, the Joint
Committee took cognizance of the provisions of the Reorganization
Act of 1949, including section 6 thereof (5 U. S. C. A. sec. 133z-4,
as amended). The Reorganization Act provides, in effect, that a
reorganization plan submitted by the President to the Congress
shall not take effect if within a 60-day period there has been passed
by either of the two Houses a resolution stating in substance that
that House does not favor the reorganization plan. Upon due con-
sideration, however, the members of the Joint Committee con-
cluded that proposed international agreements for cooperation
should not be disapproved by the Congress unless both Houses
should join in the concurrent resolution.
Moreover, the Joint Committee considered amending section
123c to provide that all future proposed agreements for coopera-
tion or amendments thereto should follow the procedure of a 60-
day review period, and be subject to a concurrent resolution
expressing disapproval. However, the Joint Committee decided,
after due consideration, that such procedure should be limited to
agreements for cooperation pei-taining to exchange of military in-
formation or materials, as under subsections 91c, 144b, or 144c,
and therefore added a new subsection 123d applying only to those
subsections.
The Joint Committee considered carefully many alternatives
before finally deciding upon the language and procedure of sub-
section 123d. Without some method of close congressional review
over the extraordinary and sensitive powers authorized to be car-
ried out by the executive agencies elsewhere in the bill, the com-
mittee felt that it could not recommend the changes requested to
sections 91 and 144, which are now incorporated in this bill.
In adding the proviso that during the 85th Congress such period
shall be 30 days rather than 60 days, it was intended to make it
possible for the executive branch to proceed expeditiously with the
execution of an agreement with Great Britain prior to expiration
of the 85th Congress.
* **#***
[p. 17]
-------
494 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
Proviso requiring section 123 procedure
As in subsections 91c and 144c, cooperation and communication
can take place under subsection 144b only if the cooperation is
undertaken pursuant to an agreement entered into in accordance
with section 123. As indicated above, section 123b requires the
President's approval and his determination in writing that the
performance of the proposed agreement will promote and will not
constitute an unreasonable risk to the common defense and
security.
Jfe Jji i{s Jfc ik ;fe &
[p. 19]
B. Amendments to section 91 (sees. 92 and 123)
With respect to increased cooperation with our allies in the field
of materials, it is recommended that a new section 91c be added
to the act and that sections 92 and 123 be amended.
1. Under the recommended new section 91c, the President may
authorize the transfer, by sale, lease, loan, or donation to a friendly
nation of: (1) nonnuclear parts of atomic weapons to improve that
nation's state of training or operational readiness; (2) utilization
facilities for military applications; and (3) nuclear materials for
military utilization facilities or atomic weapons.
Under this section nonnuclear parts of atomic weapons, military
reactors and nuclear materials could be furnished to our allies
when in accordance with the terms and conditions of a program
approved by the President. It is anticipated that under this au-
thority nonnuclear parts of atomic weapons might be furnished to
selected allies where such transfer was necessary to improve their
state of training and operational readiness. Nuclear components
would be retained in the custody of the United States. Military
reactors could be made available to our allies for both military
propulsion and power purposes. In addition, materials for mil-
itary reactors and for manufacture into atomic weapons could be
made available to our allies. It is not intended that manufactured
nuclear components of weapons could be transferred under this
amendment, nor that we promote the entry of additional nations
into the field of production of nuclear weapons.
2. The amendment to section 123 removes the requirement
(with respect to transfers under sec. 91c) that the receiving nation
guarantee that materials furnished not be used for weapons or
other military purposes. However, a safeguard in connection with
transfers of materials is provided in that portion of the recom-
mended section 91c which states "whenever the President deter-
mines that the proposed cooperation and the transfer of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 495
proposed nonnuclear parts of atomic weapons, utilization facilities,
[p. 25]
or source, byproduct, or special nuclear material will promote and
will not constitute an unreasonable risk to the common defense and
security." In implementation of this provision it is not expected
that the President personally will consider each proposed action
under an agreement for cooperation. Instead, an Executive order
will be recommended to the President establishing procedures
whereby the President would authorize proposed transfers only
after joint review by the Department of Defense, the Commission,
and other interested agencies, and would authorize such transfers
in the absence of the President's personal approval only where the
Department of Defense and the Commission agree that the pro-
posed cooperation and the transfer of the proposed nonnuclear
parts of atomic weapons, utilization facilities, or source, by-
product, or special nuclear material will promote and will not con-
stitute an unreasonable risk to the common defense and security.
*******
[p. 26]
SEC. 3. Section 92 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 92. PROHIBITION.—It shall be unlawful, except as pro-
vided in section 91, for any person to transfer or receive in inter-
state commerce, manufacture, produce, transfer, acquire, possess,
import, or export any atomic weapon. Nothing in this section
shall be deemed to modify the provisions of subsection 31a or
section 101."
SEC. 4. Section 123a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended to read as follows:
"SEC. 123. COOPERATION WITH OTHER NATIONS.—No coopera-
tion with any nation or regional defense organization pursuant to
sections 54, 57, 64, 82, 91, 103, 104, or 144 shall be undertaken
until—
"a. The Commission or, in the case of those agreements for
cooperation arranged pursuant to subsection 91c or 144b and to be
implemented by the Department of Defense, the Department of
Defense has submitted to the President the proposed agreement
for cooperation, together with its recommendations thereon, which
proposed agreement shall include (1) the terms, conditions, dura-
tion, nature, and scope of the cooperation; (2) a guaranty by the
cooperating party that security safeguards and standards as set
forth in the agreement for cooperation will be maintained; (3)
except in the case of those agreements for cooperation arranged
-------
496 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
pursuant to subsection 91c a guaranty by the cooperating party
that any material to be transferred pursuant to such agreement
will not be used for atomic weapons, or for research on or develop-
ment of atomic weapons or for any other military purpose; and
(4) a guaranty by the cooperating party that any material or any
restricted data to be transferred pursuant to the agreement for
cooperation will not be transferred to unauthorized persons or
beyond the jurisdiction of the cooperating party, except as spe-
cified in the agreement for cooperation;"
*******
[p. 28]
l.lh(2) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
S. REP. No. 1654, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958)
AMENDMENT TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954,
AS AMENDED
JUNE 5, 1958.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. PASTORE, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 3912]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered S.
3912, an original committee bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended, reports favorably thereon without amend-
ment and recommends that the bill do pass.
*******
[p. 1]
NOTE : The Senate Report is the same as the House Report.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 497
l.lh(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 2051, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958)
AMENDING THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS
AMENDED
JUNE 27, 1958.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. DURHAM, from the committee of conference, submitted the
following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H. R. 12716]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H. R. 12716)
to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, having met,
after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do
recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the Senate recede from its amendment numbered (1).
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate numbered (2) and agree to the same with an amend-
ment as follows:
On page 2 strike out lines 1, 2, and 3 and substitute in lieu
thereof the following:
"(l)nonnuclear parts of atomic weapons provided that such
nation has made substantial progress in the development of
atomic weapons, and other nonnuclear parts of atomic weap-
ons systems involving Restricted Data provided that such
transfer ivill not contribute significantly to that nation's
atomic weapon design, development, or fabrication capability;
for the purpose of improving that nation's state of training
and operational readiness;
At page 2, line 18, after the word "weapons", strike out the
comma and insert in lieu thereof and atomic weapons systems,
And the Senate agree to the same.
[P. 1]
-------
498
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendments
of the Senate numbered (3) and (4), and agree to the same.
CARL T. DURHAM,
CHET HOLIFIELD,
MELVIN PRICE,
JAMES E. VAN ZANDT,
CRAIG HOSMER,
Managers on the Part of the House.
CLINTON P. ANDERSON,
JOHN 0. PASTORE,
ALBERT GORE,
BOURKE B. HlCKENLOOPER,
JOHN W. BRICKER,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
[p. 2]
l.lh(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 104 (1958)
l.lh(4) (a) June 19: Debated and passed House, pp. 11779,11781-11782,
11784
Mr. DURHAM.
* * * * *
The next type of material involved
under 91c (3) would be source, byprod-
uct, or special nuclear material for re-
search on, development of, production
of, or use in utilization facilities for
military applications. No. 3 thus
would authorize the United States to
make available to our allies nuclear
material of a nature needed in connec-
tion with military reactors they would
develop or receive from the United
States. This amendment is necessary
because the Atomic Energy Act, as it
stands today under section 123, does
not permit the transfer of any nuclear
material for military purposes.
Each one of the first three types of
material that might be transferred, as
you can see, does not make it possible
for the recipient nation to achieve an
atomic weapon capability. Subject to
certain conditions, limitations, and pro-
cedures, allied nations, in addition to
Great Britain, individually, would be
eligible to receive such material.
You will note, however, there is a
fourth type of material coming under
section 91c. Number (4) pertains to
source, byproduct, or special nuclear
material for research on, development
of, or use in atomic weapons. This
type of material is directly related to
nuclear weapon capability. This is the
material without which a nation does
not have nuclear weapon capability. It
is in subsection 91c (4), therefore, that
the Joint Committee added two specific
provisos which, in effect, limit transfer
of this latter type of material to the
one ally today that already has nuclear
weapons of its own—Great Britain.
The provisos are, (1) that the transfer
of such material to that nation is nec-
essary to improve its atomic weapon
design, development, or fabrication ca-
pability; and (2) that such nation has
made substantial progress in the de-
velopment of atomic weapons. These
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
499
two provisos were added by the Joint
Committee in order to assure that such
transfer could not be made to enable
additional nations to achieve atomic
weapon capability. As you know, only
three nations in the world today have
this capability—the United States,
Great Britain, and Russia. It is not
the intent of the proposed legislation
to encourage a "fourth or fifth nation"
to enter this group. So you may un-
derstand the high standard that must
be met before a nation would be eligible
to receive nuclear material for use in a
weapon, I refer you to page 12, para-
graph 5, of the committee report, which
states:
With regard to the words "substantial
progress" in the second proviso of subsection
91c (4) it is intended that the cooperating na-
tion must have achieved considerably more than
a mere theoretical knowledge of atomic-weapons
design, or the testing of a limited number of
atomic weapons. It is intended that the co-
operating nation must have achieved a capa-
bility on its own of fabricating a vaiiety of
atomic weapons, and constiucted and opeiated
the necessary facilities, including weapons re-
search and development laboratories, weapon-
manufacturing facilities, a weapon-testing sta-
tion, and trained personnel to opei ate each of
these facilities It is intended that full informa-
tion shall be provided the Joint Committee as to
the basis of any such determination.
* * * * *
[p. 11779]
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman,
when the first draft of this legislation
was presented to the committee in Jan-
uary I was constrained to take a posi-
tion against the bill; but I am not
opposing the bill as it is now written.
I am supporting this bill. I think the
committee has done a good job in revis-
ing the language. This is a clean bill.
It is reported without objection from
the committee. As I say, I am support-
ing the bill.
The present bill will give to the ad-
ministration, in my judgment, the
power to fulfill the objectives in the
field of military cooperation with our
allies which it needs to fulfill. At the
same time we have written into this
legislation safeguards which the Con-
gress can use to scrutinize any type of
international agreement involving the
transfer of atomic weapon material or
atomic weapon information for war-
time purposes. In other words, the
Congress retains in its hands the right
of final decision now. In the McMahon
Act and in the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 there were provisions whereby
weapons could be transferred. There
are two of these provisions. One was
by treaty which would have required
a two-thirds vote of the other body.
The other was by international agree-
ment, which would require affirmative
majority approval by both Houses.
In the present bill we have retained
both of these methods unchanged, but
we have also added a third method
which I will describe and which is
found on page 4, beginning in line 20
and ending on page 5, line 14 of the bill.
This language is most important as it
is the key to Congressional control of
the transfer of atomic weapons and re-
stricted weapons information and de-
livery system in the atomic field. It is
important because it provides that any
agreement of this type shall lie before
the Congress for 60 days, during which
time if the Congress wishes to disap-
prove the resolution by concurrent res-
olution of disapproval of both Houses,
this disapproval or this will of the Con-
gress can be made known by a majority
vote of both Houses. I stress the point
if this is done the concurrent resolution
does not have to be signed by the
President and, therefore, there is no
Presidential power to veto such a dis-
approving concurrent resolution.
It places on the Joint Committee a
very grave responsibility, it places on
the Congress a grave responsibility to
the people of our Nation. Once an in-
ternational agreement is proposed in
this field by the executive branch and
submitted to the Congress, in my opin-
ion, it will be the responsibility of the
Joint Committee to consider such an
agreement and report to the Congress
its findings. Any Member of Congress
-------
500
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
then may file a concurrent resolution of
disapproval. If this happens, in my
opinion, it will be the duty of the Joint
Committee to hold hearings on such a
resolution. In my sober and considered
judgment the Joint Committee must
function in this instance promptly and
expeditiously if such resolution is re-
ferred to it. The Joint Committee must
give to the Congress, in my opinion, its
best judgment on such agreement and I
say that it should do this without re-
gard as to whether a concurrent res-
olution of disapproval is filed by a
Member of the House or not. I con-
sider this is an important duty and
responsibility of the Joint Committee
and, as one member, I shall press for
such action.
What would happen if we did not do
this? Well, it would be possible for an
agreement to be submitted to the com-
mittee, the committee could take no ac-
tion upon it, the time of 60 days would
run, and the membership would be de-
nied the information which I think they
should have on this very important
matter. I do not think our committee
would be guilty of inaction on such an
important matter.
One of the reasons why I take this so
seriously is that I believe we are deal-
ing with matters which are so serious
and so far reaching in their effect that
it may decide the fate of mankind. We
are dealing with the subject of custody
and responsibility for the use of mass
destruction nuclear weapons never
imagined before by the mind of man.
These weapons, if it is within our
power as a Nation, must never fall into
careless or irresponsible hands, and I
stress at this point that there are na-
tions with which we have mutual secu-
rity alliances where those particular
nations have unstable governments.
In some instances these governments
are permeated with Communist parlia-
mentary representatives. The govern-
ments change from week to week. In
my opinion, without naming names, it
would be a tragic thing to put into the
hands of that type of nation the ter-
rible power of these atomic and hydro-
gen weapons. I think it would be an
act of sheer irresponsibility for this
Congress to do such a thing, and I
pledge my own efforts, if I am alive at
the time any such transfer is proposed,
to do all in my power to prevent this
from happening. I want peace in this
world more than I want any other one
thing, and I know my colleagues in the
Chamber feel the same way. I believe
it would be possible to obtain peace
easier when there are only 3 nations in
the world holding atomic weapons in
their custody than it would be if there
were 5 or 7 or 11.
Now, I do not know how long it will
be before a fourth or fifth nation
achieves these atomic weapons on their
[p. 11781]
own scientific efforts and ability. That
is something that we cannot control.
We can hasten the day by giving them
the scientific information or the nuclear
parts that we have or transferring
them weapons in peacetime. This
would hasten the day when they would
have these weapons. But, if we did
this, we would bear upon our shoulders
the burden of responsibility for crea-
ting a fourth or fifth nuclear-weapon-
owning nation. This is a burden that
we should not bear, in my opinion, at
this time. An irresponsible or careless
use of these weapons by an irrespon-
sible nation might bring on a third
world war, which would be a nuclear
war, and which would have within it
the capability of destroying civilization.
Therefore, we have placed in section 4
of the bill an amendment to section 123
of the Atomic Act of 1954, which pro-
vides that in case such a proposal is
made, this Congress can work its will
upon that proposal and can either allow
it to become effective by nonaction or
prevent it becoming effective by the
action of filing and passing a concur-
rent resolution of disapproval by both
Houses. We can stop such a proposal
if we, in the collective judgment of the
two legislative bodies, believe it would
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
501
be an unwise transference of weapons
at that particular time or of informa-
tion or of delivery system for those
weapons.
Regardless of the progress of science
in these other nations towards the reali-
zation of these weapons, we owe our
own responsibility to the people of the
United States and the people of the
world in this field, and this is the legis-
lative consideration which we are
taking today in discharging this re-
sonsibility. The Congress must retain
its statutory power and its authority
to sit in judgment as the elected rep-
resentatives of all the people so that
we can control this important thing.
The transfer of atomic hydrogen
weapon material or atomic hydrogen
weapon information is too important a
matter to rest in the hands of any one
man regardless of who that man is,
whether he be a Democrat or a Repub-
lican, and even though he may have the
best intention in the world. This is so
important that the Congress itself
should work its will upon this partic-
ular matter.
Now, we have retained safeguards
throughout this bill setting up stand-
ards of procedure and criteria through
which the executive branch shall go in
approaching a nation and in negotiat-
ing with a nation such a proposal to
transfer all or part of the materials
that are involved here. But, in addi-
tion to these safeguards that are writ-
ten throughout the bill, there is the
overriding safeguard of final decision
by action of the Congress.
Now, I call the attention of the Mem-
bers to the report which was reported
without opposition by the Joint Com-
mittee. It is common knowledge that
a committee report is a common expres-
sion of Congressional intent, and is fre-
quently referred to for enlightenment
or even for judicial interpretation.
The report which accompanies this bill
has been very carefully considered
word by word and line by line. It has
the approval of the committee, both
Democratic and Republican, and it is
therefore, in my opinion, very impor-
tant that the report be considered with
the bill as unusually vital in establish-
ing Congressional intent. As I said
when I began my talk, when the first
draft came before us I was against it.
It has been changed. The protection
has been put in the bill, the Congres-
sional authority to take final action
has been maintained, and therefore I
am glad that I am able to join my col-
leagues in supporting the bill.
In this difficult age in which we live,
it is difficult to see through the veil of
the future. It is difficult to know
whether our decisions are wise or fool-
ish. But those decisions must be made
from day to day in this chamber and
we make them as carefully and as
prayerfully as we know how in a field
so vital as this. It is with this attitude
that I have approached this legislation
and agreed to support it.
The important reason why I am will-
ing and able to support this legislation
is that, notwithstanding the language
in the bill, which is complicated and
difficult to understand, the real heart
of the matter is this. In the last analy-
sis, any proposal to transfer nuclear
material for military purposes or clas-
sified atomic energy information for
any military purpose must come before
the Congress under an international
agreement—such an agreement must
be presented to the Congress for scru-
tiny for 60 days, except in one instance,
which is in the remainder of the 85th
Congress, because we are nearing the
end of the Congress and have provided
for a 30-day period only for this ses-
sion.
We know that there will probably
not be any agreements other than one
agreement which may come up for cer-
tain types of exchange with Great
Britain. I do not have the time to go
into that now, but we shall go into it
fully when the time comes.
Mr. Chairman, let me say further
that we recognize that the fate of
NATO and the fate of the Free World
depend essentially upon the United
-------
502
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
States and Great Britain standing
shoulder-to-shoulder in the develop-
ment of atomic energy and in the cus-
tody of these weapons at this particular
time; that the great burden lies on
those two nations in NATO to provide
that particular atomic strength.
Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I am glad to yield
to the gentleman from North Carolina.
Mr. DURHAM. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to say to the committee that
no member of this committee has taken
this legislation more seriously than the
gentleman in the well of the House at
the present time. He did a fine piece
of work in bringing to the committee
some of the amendments that are in the
bill and 1 want to compliment him on
what he has done.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I thank my
chairman.
Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania.
Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Chairman, I
would like to join the chairman of this
committee in commending the gentle-
man from California. As our chair-
man has said, during the hearings on
this bill, the gentleman indicated the
great concern he has over the weapon
itself and its possibilities of mass de-
struction in the event of a nuclear war.
The contribution of the gentleman
from California to the committee hear-
ings, in my opinion, made possible the
bill that we have before us today.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
want to thank my chairman and the
gentleman from Pennsylvania for their
kind remarks; also I want to thank the
members of the committee for being
patient with me and listening to my
arguments.
I want to thank them also for the
contributions they have made to this
bill, because every member of the sub-
committee and the main committee has
had a part in this bill. It is not the
product of any one man, it is the prod-
uct of the committee. All of us have
tried to bring before the House a re-
sponsible piece of legislation in this
vital field.
ARGUMENT FOR TRANSFERRING NUCLEAR
ARMS TO NATO ALLIES AND COUNTER-
ARGUMENT
The argument has been made that
we should transfer atomic weapons to
our NATO allies in order that we
strengthen our mutual alliance. Also,
that we should not withhold any re-
stricted data in the atomic field from
our friends because the Soviets may
possess such information.
This argument needs to be answered.
In the first place, our NATO alliance
is not based on equality of ability nor
contribution to the mutual security al-
liance. Each nation contributes ac-
cording to its talents and respective
ability. There are many different kinds
of tasks to be performed. I regret to
say that, up to this time, not one of our
NATO allies have fulfilled their orig-
inal NATO obligations.
The NATO shield, from the stand-
point of planned military effectiveness,
is full of holes. There is a grave ques-
tion as to the stability of government
in some of our NATO allies. There is
a strong element of Communist par-
ticipation in both the parliamentary
bodies and the executive agencies of
some of our NATO allies.
The problem of security in the field
of highly secret atomic weapon design
and fabrication in these countries is
insoluble at this time. To transmit to
these nations atomic weapons or
weapon design information or other
restricted data would be equivalent to
transmission through the Communist
transmission belt directly to the So-
viets.
The arguments that the Soviets al-
ready know how to make atomic and
hydrogen weapons anyway does not
dispose of the need for security. It is
entirely possible that degrees of knowl-
edge, both as to materials and produc-
tion techniques, are involved which are
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
503
of special value to our country.
[p. 11782]
Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Chairman,
I want to commend our chairman, the
gentleman from North Carolina, the
entire committee membership and our
staff for their diligence and their hard
work and effort they have put into the
writing of this piece of legislation. I
want to assure the House that every
possible safeguard was taken into con-
sideration in the writing of this bill
to protect all restricted data. There is
contained in this bill safeguards deal-
ing directly with NATO and for every
possible or conceivable use of this in-
formation under this particular piece
of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues on the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
who preceded me this afternoon, have
covered for you in detail the specific
categories and types of information
and material that could be transferred
or exchanged with our allies under the
proposed amendments, as contained in
the bill before you.
I do not intend to duplicate those
points already discussed but will ad-
dress myself to the specific require-
ments and safeguards that are con-
tained in this bill, and which must he
met before such transfers or exchanges
may take place and which, in my opin-
ion, most effectively and most strongly
protect the interests of the United
States.
First, you will note, that any such
cooperation, whether it be with regard
to transfer of material or communica-
tion of classified information for mili-
tary purposes, requires a determination
by the President that it will promote
and will not constitute an unreason-
able risk to the common defense and
security. A second requirement is that
the cooperating nation or—in those
cases under section 144b, where the
recipient is a regional defense organ-
ization such as NATO, the organization
must be participating with the United
States pursuant to an international
arrangement and making substantial
and material contributions to the mu-
tual defense and security.
A further requirement is that the co-
operation must be undertaken pursuant
to an agreement entered into and in ac-
cordance with section 123 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 as amended. Un-
der section 123 of the Atomic Energy
Act, as it exists now in the current
law, additional limitations and condi-
tions are outlined.
Specifically, the proposed agreement
for cooperation must be submitted to
the President together with the recom-
mendations of the Atomic Energy
Commission or, in certain cases, the
Department of Defense with the neces-
sary recommendations of that agency.
The proposed agreement must in-
clude (a) the terms, conditions, du-
ration, nature, and scope of the
cooperation; (b) a guaranty by the
cooperating party that security safe-
guards and standards, as set forth in
the agreement for cooperation, will be
maintained; (c) a guaranty by the co-
operating party that any material or
any restricted data to be transferred
pursuant to the agreement for co-
operation will not be transferred to
unauthorized persons or beyond the
jurisdiction of the cooperating party,
except as specified in the agreement
for cooperation.
After receipt by the President, the
proposed agreement for cooperation
must be approved and its execution au-
thorized with a determination in
writing by the President that the per-
formance of the proposed agreement
"will promote and will not constitute
an unreasonable risk to the common de-
fense and security." Subsequent to
this presidential approval, authoriza-
tion, and determination in writing, the
proposed agreement for cooperation
together with the President's approval
and determination must be submitted
to the Congress and referred to the
joint committee.
Under the current law, all such pro-
posed agreements for cooperation can-
not take effect until it has rested with
-------
504
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
the joint committee 30 days, while Con-
gress is in session. The purpose of this
was to give Congress, through the joint
committee, and opportunity to review
the agreement before it went into
effect.
H. R. 12716 would amend section 123
with regard to the period of time re-
quired for a proposed agreement for
cooperation involving military infor-
mation or material to lie before the
joint committee. All proposed agree-
ments for cooperation relative to the
transfer or communication of military
material or military information,
through a new subsection 123d, would
have to be submitted to the Congress
and referred to the joint committee and
a period of 60 days would have to elapse
while Congress is in session before such
proposed agreement could take effect.
In addition, by the new subsection 123d,
the proposed agreement would not be-
come effective if during such 60-day
period the Congress passes a concur-
rent resolution of disapproval. This
new subsection 123d, therefore, adds
two additional safeguards with regard
to military information and military
material that could be transferred to
our allies.
First, it doubles the required time the
proposed agreement must lie before the
joint committee before it can take ef-
fect. This gives the joint committee
additional time to carefully review and
consider the proposal.
Second, it gives the Congress an op-
portunity to reject such agreement by
concurrent resolution during this 60-
day period.
In adding these two additional safe-
guards, the joint committee, in effect,
reserves to the Congress a share in the
responsibility for the dissemination of
this important information and the dis-
tribution of this important material.
The various procedures and require-
ments which I have enumerated for you
and which are set out in this bill apply
to all military information and military
material that the United States could
or would transfer under the Atomic
Energy Act. They are, in my opinion,
firm, reliable, and satisfactory safe-
guards to insure the best interests of
the United States will be served in any
arrangements entered into pursuant to
these amendments.
In addition, however, as previously
explained to you by my colleagues,
other conditions are contained in the
bill with regard to those areas involv-
ing classified information or nuclear
material of high sensitivity. Transfer
of nuclear material for use in atomic
weapons as permitted under subsection
91c (4) or communication of classified
information pertaining to the detailed
design and fabrication of atomic weap-
ons permitted under subsection 144c
(1) would first have to comply with two
important provisos:
First. It must be necessary to im-
prove atomic weapon design, develop-
ment, or fabrication capability of the
cooperating nation.
Second. Such nation must already
have made substantial progress in the
development of atomic weapons.
Paragraph 5 on page 12 of the com-
mittee report clearly explains what
would constitute substantial progress.
As an added indication of our firm
intent to safeguard United States in-
terests in cooperative arrangements
with other nations pursuant to these
amendments, I refer you to the manner
by which an ally may be authorized to
purchase one utilization facility for
military applications as explained in
the committee report beginning on the
last two lines of page 14 and continu-
ing on page 15. You will note that
while the cooperating nation may be
authorized to purchase a nuclear sub-
marine reactor, for example, from a
private American firm, the agreement
must provide due protection for patent
and license rights in the United States
Government, as well as an express pro-
vision that the United States Govern-
ment will not provide warranty or
indemnity for the materials or facil-
ities transferred.
[p. 11784]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 505
l.lh(4)(b) June 23: Amended and passed Senate, pp. 11926-11928
AMENDMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY
ACT OF 1954
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent that the un-
finished business be temporarily iaid
aside and that the Senate proceed to
the consideration of Calendar No. 1685,
S. 3912.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill will be stated by title for the infor-
mation of the Senate.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A
bill (S. 3912) to amend the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is
there objection to the request of the
Senator from Montana?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, S.
3912, the bill before the Senate, is an
extremely important one. It is identi-
cal with H. R. 12716, which was passed
by an overwhelming vote of the House
of Representatives only last week.
At the appropriate time I shall ask
that H. R. 12716 be substituted for
S. 3912, and to have applied to the
House bill any amendments which may
be added to S. 3912. But I shall dis-
cuss, for the convenience of the Senate,
the Senate bill, because it is referred
to in the report. I think it will make it
possible for Senators more intelligibly
to follow the debate.
S. 3912 amends the present atomic
energy law, the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, so as to permit a
greater exchange of military informa-
tion and material with our allies.
As I have already stated, a corre-
sponding bill, H. R. 12716, identical in
all its provisions with the Senate bill,
was, on June 19, 1958, passed by the
House of Representatives by the over-
whelming vote of 345 to 12 and, accord-
ingly, has been sent to the Senate and
placed on the calendar as No. 1769.
S. 3912 was introduced jointly, on
May 27,1958, by the Senator from Iowa
[Mr. HICKENLOOPER] and me.
The bill is designed to meet one of
the major points referred to by the
President in his January 9 state of the
Union message to Congress when he
stated :
It is of the highest importance that the
Congress enact the necessary legislation to
enable us to exchange appropriate scientific
and technical information with friendly coun-
tries as pait of our effort to achieve effective
scientific coopeiation.
This bill is regarded by the Secretary
of State as ''indispensable, both to our
collective security policy and to our dis-
armament policy"—hearings, page 446.
This is a bill the need for which is
regarded as being urgent by Gen.
Lauris Norstad, Supreme Commander
of the Allied Powers in Europe. It has
the strong endorsement of the Atomic
Energy Commission, the Department
of Defense, and the State Department.
This is a bill which, after detailed
consideration by the Joint Committee
on Atomic Energy, was reported fa-
vorably without amendment, with the
recommendation that it be passed; and
a report—Report No. 1654—was sub-
mitted thereon.
Senate bill 3912, as presently before
the Senate, is the result of 4 months'
continuous study and consideration by
the Subcommittee on Agreements for
Cooperation of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy. During this period,
the subcommittee, assisted by other
members of the full committee, gave a
great deal of thought and attention to
the objectives and the detailed lan-
guage of the proposed legislation.
Our studies began with the receipt of
a letter on January 27, 1958, from the
Chairman of the Atomic Energy Com-
mission, recommending specific amend-
ments to the Atomic Energy Act. The
objectives were to permit "more eco-
-------
506
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
nomical use of scientific and engineer-
ing talent and funds," and "to increase
the collective preparedness of the
United States and its allies." This let-
ter, with the original recommended
amendments, is set forth in Appendix
A of the committee's report, pages 21
to 33.
In view of the importance of the pro-
posed legislation, on January 28, 1958,
I introduced, by request, and without
endorsement or criticism, Senate bill
3165, containing the specific amend-
ments recommended by Chairman
Lewis Strauss of the Atomic Energy
Commission. The bill was referred to
the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
and, in turn, immediately was referred
to the Subcommittee on Agreements
for Cooperation, which began hearings
in executive session on January 29,
1958.
During the months that have elapsed
since the Joint Committee first began
consideration of the proposed legisla-
tion, the subcommittee held numerous
hearings, both in executive and in open
sessions. The dates on which the hear-
ings were held and the list of witnesses
who participated are set forth on pages
5, 6, and 7 of the committee report.
The testimony of these witnesses was
most helpful to the Joint Committee in
drafting the bill now before the Senate.
While the Joint Committee agreed in
principle with the objectives of the
legislation proposed by the AEC Chair-
man in his January 27 letter, the com-
mittee, after careful consideration and
review, made certain changes in the
original bill. First, with the concur-
rence of the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion, the committee eliminated a
suggested amendment to section 55 of
the Atomic Energy Act identical with
[p. 11926]
the original Senate bill of 1954, which
would have permitted the AEC to set
up a revolving fund of indefinite
amount in excess of $200 million to
finance long-term commitments for the
purchase of foreign special nuclear
material. This change was reflected
in Senate bill 3474, introduced by me,
by request, on March 13, 1958, which
was identical with the original Senate
bill 3165 and the proposed legislation
originally requested by the AEC Chair-
man, except for the elimination of the
proposed amendment to section 55.
Senate bill 3912, which now is before
the Senate, is an original committee
bill, introduced on May 28, 1958. It is
identical in objectives with the two pre-
vious bills, but is different in certain
changes which were considered neces-
sary by the committee. I can assure
the Senate that the final proposed leg-
islation is the result of diligent and
careful consideration by the members
of the Joint Committee.
A detailed section-by-section analysis
of Senate bill 3912 begins on page 10 of
the committee report. For a thorough
understanding, I refer Senators to that
analysis. In summary, the pending bill
would amend the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, so as to permit—subject to
specific conditions, limitations, and pro-
cedures—greater exchange of certain
types of military information and ma-
terial with our allies.
The current law requires that any
material transferred to another nation
must not be used for military purposes
—section 123 a. (3).
Senate bill 3912, by amendment to
sections 91 and 123 a., would permit
the President to authorize the Commis-
sion or the Department of Defense,
with the assistance of the other, to
transfer to an ally nation, subject to
specified safeguards:
(1) Nonnuclear parts of atomic weapons to
improve that nation's state of training and
operational readiness; (2) utilization facilities
for military applications, (3) source, byproduct
or special nuclear material for research on, de-
velopment of, production of or use in utilization
facilities for military applications; (4) source,
bypioduct, or special nuclear material for re-
search on, development of, ol use in atomic
weapons.
Except for the specific types of ma-
terial listed in the proposed new sub-
section 91 c. no other material for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
507
military purposes would be authorized
to be transferred. Hence, the nuclear
component of atomic weapons could not
be transferred. It will also be noted
that the term "utilization facilities,"
by definition in the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, does not mean atomic
weapons. It would include a nuclear
reactor, such as in an atomic sub-
marine.
Authorization to transfer material
for research on, development of, or use
in atomic weapons carries the proviso
"that the transfer of such material to
that nation is necessary to improve its
atomic weapon design, development, or
fabrication capability." It also carries
the further proviso "that such nation
has made substantial progress in the
development of atomic weapons."
The two provisos were added by the
Joint Committee to the original lan-
guage suggested by the Commission,
in order to assure that such transfer
could not be made to assist a "fourth
nation" to achieve atomic weapon ca-
pability.
To fully understand the high stand-
ard required, I refer Senators to page
12, paragraph 5, of the committee re-
port, which states:
With regard to the words "substantial
progiess" in the second proviso of subsection
91 c. (4) it is intended that the coopeiating
nation must have achieved considerably mote
than a mere theoretical knowledge of atomic
weapons design, or the testing of a limited num-
ber of atomic weapons.
It is intended that the cooperating nation
must have achieved a capability on its own
of fabricating a variety of atomic weapons,
and constiucted and operated the necessary
facilities, including weapons research and de-
velopment laboratories, weapon manufacturing
facilities, a weapon-testing station, and tiained
personnel to operate each of these facilities.
As distinct from material, Senate bill
3912 also provides for greater ex-
change of military information. The
Atomic Energy Act, as it stands today,
permits, under section 144 b., the com-
munication of certain type of restricted
data to another nation or to a regional
defense organization, such as NATO,
for training and defense purposes. In-
formation so transferable is specifically
limited. Experience to date has re-
flected that section 144 b., as written,
is too restrictive to meet the objectives
for which it was written. Senate bill
3912 would amend section 144 b. in the
form requested by the President and
the executive agencies.
In category (2) of subsection 144 b.
the words "and other military applica-
tions of atomic energy" are added in
order that restricted data concerning
other military applications of atomic
energy, besides atomic weapons, may
be transmitted to train personnel of
our allies. This would include, for ex-
ample, information on nuclear-powered
submarines.
Similarly, the law would be changed
to permit transfer of restricted data
concerning the capabilities of potential
enemies in the employment of these
other military applications of atomic
energy besides atomic weapons.
A very important area of informa-
tion is also added to section 144 b.
which would permit communication of
restricted data to an ally or regional
defense organization as is necessary to
the development of compatible delivery
systems for atomic weapons. This lat-
ter addition will make it possible for
our allies to make necessary adjust-
ments in their airplanes and missiles
to be able to accommodate nuclear
weapons furnished by the United
States in the event of war.
This will make possible the immedi-
ate availability of allied weapons sys-
tems in the event of an emergency.
The proposed revision of section 144
b. removes an unduly restrictive pro-
viso in the existing section to the effect
that no information may be transmit-
ted which will reveal important infor-
mation concerning the design or
fabrication of the nuclear components
of an atomic weapon. Testimony was
received from the Department of De-
fense, the Commission, and American
representatives of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization that such lan-
guage in the present act seriously im-
-------
508
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
pedes their ability to transmit required
information to our military allies for
training and mutual defense purposes.
The additional areas in which re-
stricted data could be communicated to
another ally or regional defense organi-
zation under section 144 b. would not
include information which would make
it possible for the recipient to design
or fabricate its own weapons.
This more sensitive type of informa-
tion could not be transferred under
section 144b. but is treated separately
under a new subsection 144c.
S. 3912 would add a new subsection
144c to permit the President to author-
ize the Commission, with the assistance
of the Department of Defense, to ex-
change with another nation restricted
data pertaining to atomic weapons
provided the communication of such
restricted data to that nation "is nec-
essary to improve its atomic weapon
design, development, or fabrication
capability and provided that nation has
made substantial progress in the de-
velopment of atomic weapons." It will
be noted that, with regard to the re-
latively sensitive information trans-
ferrable under subsection 144c, the
recipient nation must have already
made substantial progress in the de-
velopment of atomic weapons before it
could qualify to receive the informa-
tion. This additional proviso which
was inserted by the Joint Committee
is identical to the one previously de-
scribed in subsection 91c (4). I refer
Senators again to paragraph 5, on
page 12 of the committee report, as to
what constitutes "substantial prog-
ress."
Similar to subsection 91c (4), this
new subsection 144c could not be used
as a means of making possible the
entry of additional nations in that
small group which today have nuclear
weapons capability.
I have covered the principal areas in
which the proposed legislation would
make possible the greater exchange of
military information and material with
our allies. Before these transfers could
take place, however, specific require-
ments must first be met.
First, there must be a determination
by the President that the proposed co-
operation and proposed transfer of
communication will promote and will
not constitute an unreasonable risk to
the common defense and security.
It is also required that the recipient
nation or regional defense organization
must be participating with the United
States pursuant to an international ar-
rangement by substantial and material
contributions to the mutual defense and
security.
A further requirement is that any
such cooperation would have to be un-
dertaken pursuant to an agreement
entered into in accordance with section
123 of the Atomic Energy Act. Section
123 of the Atomic Energy Act, it will
be found, is quite specific with regard
to additional safeguards. Guaranties
are required that specific security
standards must be maintained and that
the material or restricted data will not
be transferred to unauthorized per-
sons. The President must first approve
[p. 11927]
and authorize the execution of the pro-
posed agreement and make a deter-
mination in writing that it will pro-
mote, and will not constitute, an unrea-
sonable risk to the common defense and
security.
Under the current Atomic Energy
Act, under section 123, all agreements
for cooperation, together with the ap-
proval and the determination of the
President, must be submitted to the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy for
a period of 30 days while Congress is in
session before they may take effect.
S. 3912 would amend section 123 with
regard to agreements for cooperation
involving the transfer of military ma-
terial or exchange of military in-
formation. These military-type agree-
ments, under a new subsection 123d,
would have to be submitted to the Con-
gress and referred to the Joint Com-
mittee for a period of 60 days while
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
509
Congress was in session, and such pro-
posed agreements would not become
effective if during that 60-day period
Congress adopted a concurrent reso-
lution of disapproval. This additional
safeguard was added by the Joint Com-
mittee in order that Congress might
reserve to itself a share in the respon-
sibility of this important material.
Special provision was made for the re-
mainder of the 85th Congress in order
that certain important agreements now
under negotiation could be submitted
to this Congress without being delayed
until next year.
In short, the provision under section
123 d., for the passing or transferring
of military material or military infor-
mation, requires a delay of 60 days. A
bilateral agreement can be sent to the
Congress and the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy and remain there for
60 days, during which time the Con-
gress of the United States, by concur-
rent resolution, can enter its sense of
disapproval, which will vitiate and
render inoperative any proposed agree-
ment. But with reference to the pres-
ent Congress, in order to make it
convenient to act with regard to an
agreement which may be under negotia-
tion now, the term proposed is not 60
days, but, rather 30 days. That is the
reason why I caution Members of the
Senate to give this proposed legislation
their expeditious consideration, so that
there will be provided a period of 30
days intervening between the time the
bill is enacted and the adjournment of
this session of Congress.
The amendments to the Atomic En-
ergy Act of 1954 as contained in S.
3912 constitute the first major revision
to the basic law since 1954 with regard
to exchange of military information
and material.
These changes are not being recom-
mended on the spur of the moment.
They have received extensive and care-
ful study by the Department of State,
the Department of Defense, the Atomic
Energy Commission, and finally, the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.
I wish to say parenthetically at this
juncture that it has been the practice
in the Joint Committee on Atomic En-
ergy to invite all the members to appear
and participate whenever the commit-
tee has had important legislation
pending before it which would be re-
ferred to a subcommittee, such as this
bill, which was referred to the sub-
committee of which I am chairman, to
which position I was appointed by my
colleague and former distinguished
chairman of the Joint Committee, the
Senator from New Mexico [Mr. AN-
DERSON]. It was quite refreshing to
note that in the consideration of this
proposed legislation we had a large
contingent of the full committee in at-
tendance and actively participating at
all times.
The proposed changes are being rec-
ommended under the realization that
changes in time and circumstances
necessitate reevaluation of basic con-
cepts. It is indeed foolish for the
United States to keep from its allies
information which would be helpful to
them and to ourselves in our mutual
defense, when such information is
already known to our common enemies.
As the President of the United States
pointed out in his state of the Union
message to Congress:
It was wasteful in the extreme for friendly
allies to consume talent and money in solving
problems that their friends have already solved
—all because of artificial barriers to sharing.
We cannot afford to cut ourselves off from the
brilliant talents and minds of scientists in
friendly countries. The task ahead will be
hard enough without handcuffs of our own
making.
Mr. President and Members of the
Senate, this is only a short resume of
the objectives of the proposed legisla-
tion. It is only a brief analysis of the
provisions contained in the bill. I am
sure the proposed legislation is suffi-
ciently important to provoke the think-
ing and the conscientious study of all
Members of the Senate. To the best
of my ability I shall be ready to answer
any questions about any provision of
-------
510
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
the bill which may be of concern or
interest to the Members of the Senate.
Mr. President, if there are no ques-
tions at this time, I yield the floor.
* * * * *
[p. 11928]
l.lh(4)(c) June 27: Conference report submitted in House and
agreed to, p. 12560
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lh(4)(d) June 30: Conference report submitted in Senate and
agreed to, p. 12587
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.li GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TRAINING ACT
July 7, 1958, P.L. 85-507, §21(b)(l), 72 Stat. 337
REPEAL AND AMENDMENT OF EXISTING EMPLOYEE TRAINING LAWS
SEC. 21.
(b) The following provisions of law with respect to the follow-
ing departments are repealed and amended, effective in the man-
ner provided in subsection (a) of this section:
(1) Atomic Energy Commission: Paragraph n of section
161 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 950; 42
U.S.C. 2201 (n)) is repealed. Paragraphs o, p, q, r, and s
of such section 161 are redesignated as paragraphs n, o, p, q,
and r, respectively, of such section.
[p. 337]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 511
l.li(l) COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
S. REP. No. 213, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. (1957)
AUTHORIZING THE TRAINING OF FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES AT PUBLIC OR PRIVATE FACILITIES
APRIL 8, 1957.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. CLARK, from the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 385]
The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, to whom was
referred the bill (S. 385), to authorize the training of Federal
employees at public or private facilities, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an
amendment, and recommend that the bill, as amended, do pass.
AMENDMENT
The committee amendment strikes out all of the bill after the
enacting clause and substitutes therefor a new bill which appears
in the reported bill in italic type.
STATEMENT
The purpose of this legislation is to authorize training of Fed-
eral employees at public or private facilities. The bill as amended
is designed:
(1) To provide general statutory authority for employee
training required to further Federal programs,
(2) To make it possible for all agencies to use whatever
facilities can best and most economically serve their training
needs,
(3) To provide the President a management tool essential
to efficient operation of the departments and agencies,
(4) To establish a central point of responsibility for and
control of employee training programs, and
(5) To consolidate a variety of existing training author-
ities of limited scope and applicability.
[p. 1]
-------
512 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
JUSTIFICATION
Employee training is a necessary and inseparable function of
management. It is recognized as an essential element in all mod-
ern personnel programs. Yet, the Government, largest employer
in the Nation, lacks positive general authority to utilize this in-
dispensable management tool. Training, alone among major per-
sonnel functions, has yet to be provided for in overall enabling
legislation.
Two Hoover Commissions, among other responsible groups,
have pointed up the damaging effects of this situation and have
strongly recommended legislative action to correct it.
It is abundantly clear that no organization so large and complex
as the Federal Government, responsible for such diverse and
highly specialized programs, can long exist nor effectively operate
without training certain of its employees under special circum-
stances. These barriers to the Government's development of ef-
fective and comprehensive employee training programs should be
removed as quickly as possible. The bill would accomplish this
purpose.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public hearings on the bill were held March 8 and 12. Testi-
mony favoring the bill was presented by the United States Civil
Service Commission, Bureau of the Budget, Department of De-
fense, representatives of educational institutions and private in-
dustry, representatives of employee organizations and groups, and
individual employees. There was no testimony in opposition to
the bill.
COST
The administration testified that the relatively small cost of the
measure could be absorbed by the departments and agencies and
that no increase in appropriations would be necessary as a result
of its enactment.
It is estimated that the total Federal-wide cost of the measure
would be between eight and nine hundred thousand dollars a year.
*******
[p. 2]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 513
l.li(2) COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
H.E. EEP. No. 1951, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958)
INCREASING EFFICIENCY AND ECONOMY IN THE
GOVERNMENT BY PROVIDING FOR TRAINING PRO-
GRAMS FOR CIVILIAN OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
OF THE GOVERNMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE PER-
FORMANCE OF OFFICIAL DUTIES
JUNE 24, 1958.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Uniorr-'and ordered to be printed
Mr. HEMPHILL, from the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service, submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 385]
The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, to whom was
referred the bill (S. 385) to authorize the training of Federal em-
ployees at public or private facilities, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with amend-
ments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
The amendments are as follows:
AMENDMENTS
The committee made two amendments to S. 385, as passed the
Senate; an amendment to the text and an amendment to the title.
The amendment proposed by the committee to the text of the
bill strikes out all after the enacting clause and inserts in lieu
thereof a substitute text which appears in the reported bill in
italic type.
The amendment proposed by the committee to the title of the
bill is as follows:
Amend the title so as to read:
AN ACT To increase efficiency and economy in the
Government by providing for training programs for civil-
ian officers and employees of the Government with re-
spect to the performance of official duties.
[p. 1]
-------
514 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
PURPOSES OP AMENDMENTS
The purposes of the proposed amendment to the text of the bill
are—
(1) to establish a clear and positive congressional policy
for the promotion of efficiency and economy in all Govern-
ment activities by providing for the training of Government
employees to perform official duties more effectively;
(2) to provide guidelines, and designate the United States
Civil Service Commission as the central point of responsibility
and accountability, to insure that such congressional policy is
carried out; and
(3) to require that expenditures for the training of em-
ployees are made from available funds, without additional ap-
propriations, to the maximum practicable extent.
The purposes and effect of the proposed amendment to the text
of the bill are discussed more fully in the section-by-section an-
alysis of the bill, as reported by the committee.
The purpose of the proposed amendment to the title of the bill is
to indicate more precisely the intent, scope, and coverage of the
bill as reported.
COST
The Director of the Bureau of the Budget informed the com-
mittee that estimated additional expenditures resulting from the
enactment of the bill as reported will not exceed $1 million an-
nually, that so far as practicable such additional expenditures will
be absorbed within available funds, and that savings to the Gov-
ernment derived from improved employee training authorized by
the bill will be many times greater than the amount of such ad-
ditional expenditures.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Bureau of the Budget, the Civil Service Commission, and
the General Accounting Office have approved the bill as reported,
have urged early enactment thereof, and are in full agreement that
the bill will provide the means for substantial improvements in
efficiency and economy in Government activities. The reported bill
contains amendments proposed by the Bureau of the Budget relat-
ing to the overall supervision and control by the President of train-
ing activities, methods and types of intradepartment training,
contributions and awards by nonprofit institutions furnishing
training, expenses of attendance at meetings, and several minor
technical points.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
515
STATEMENT
NEED FOR THIS LEGISLATION
The committee's proposal to provide for training of employees
on a government-wide basis is based solely upon considerations of
strengthening and improving the performance of essential Gov-
ernment functions. The bill will provide an effective new man-
agement tool to accomplish this objective. Early approval of the
legislation is imperative to the full implementation of current leg-
islation under which a new Space Agency is to be established to
assure American leadership in the development and production of
devices needed for space
[p. 2]
REPEAL AND AMENDMENT OP EXISTING EMPLOYEE TRAINING LAWS
Section 21 specifically repeals a number of provisions of law
now authorizing training of employees of eight different depart-
ments, agencies, or bureaus, as follows: (1) Atomic Energy
Commission,
*******
[p. 26]
l.li(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 103 (1957)
l.li(3) (a) April 12: Objected to, amended and passed Senate, pp. 5580-
5581, 5607
TRAINING OF FEDERAL EMPLOYESS—
BILL PASSED OVER
The bill (S. 385) to'authorize the
training of Federal employees at pub-
lic or private facilities, and for other
purposes, was announced as next in
order.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I
should like to have a statement made
regarding how much the proposed
general authorization for training will
increase the cost of the Government.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I am
happy to advise the distinguished Sen-
ator from Georgia that the Bureau of
the Budget, which has endorsed the
bill
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I
must say that fact is not very persua-
sive to me.
Mr. CLARK. I am not suggesting
that it is, Mr. President; I am merely
endeavoring to supply the information
the Senator from Georgia desires to
have.
I was saying that the Bureau of the
Budget, which has endorsed the bill,
has indicated that the cost of the train-
ing can be absorbed by current appro-
priations. However, it is estimated
that over a period of time the cost of
the bill will run from $800,000 to
$900,000.
Let me point out to my good friend,
-------
516
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
the Senator from Georgia, that the
method by which the bill will operate
will be as follows: From time to time,
members of the civil service will be
sent to various training programs,
which will be conducted perhaps for
a few weeks in some instances and in
other instances to perhaps as much as
9 or 10 months. Their places will not
be filled while they are away, taking
the training; instead, the remainder
of the staff will absorb their work.
When they return, they will be far
better able to conduct the activities of
the Government with which they are
entrusted, than they were before they
went away.
The bill has, among its many sup-
porters, distinguished representatives
of private industry, including the vice
president in charge of training, of the
Bell Telephone Company of Pennsyl-
vania, who testified that similar pro-
cedures have been in effect in most of
the large corporations of the United
States for many a long year, and that
the bill is merely for the purpose of
modernizing the Government's proce-
dures for the training of govern-
mental employees, so as to enable them
to keep up with the many technical
and difficult problems which constantly
confront them in this changing,
modern world.
Mr. RUSSELL. It may be a highly
desirable bill. Of course, it is interest-
ing that the remainder of the staff of
an agency will be able to absorb the
work and carry on at a time a man
is away from his job to acquire train-
ing. It would seem that the agency
was over-staffed, if the staff was able
to do the work while he was away
being trained to do the work more
[p. 5580]
efficiently and the same group were
retained after he returned.
However, what concerns me is that
the bill eliminates the limitations on
the amount some of the agencies may
expend for this purpose. We have had
bills in the Senate from time to time
to provide training, for example, for
personnel in the Civil Aeronautics
Administration. That training was
very valuable, but there was a limita-
tion on the amount which could be
spent for that purpose. I have for-
gotten the exact amount. I think the
amount the agency could spend for
that purpose was $100,000 or $50,000.
The same limitation was applied to
other agencies that were permitted to
participate in a training program.
There was a limitation on the amount
they could spend in any one year. This
bill removes that limitation and leaves
it to the discretion of the head of the
agency. It is bound to result in
increased spending.
Mr. CLARK. If the Senator will
yield, it is understanding—and I trust
the Senator from Georgia will correct
me if I am wrong—that the training
which is permitted by the bill has long
been afforded to members of the
Armed Forces, with which the Senator
from Georgia, I am sure, is familiar,
as he is chairman of the Committee on
Armed Services. The bill will give
to the civilian force of the United
States Government the same privileges
that are extended to the Armed Forces,
as to which there is no limitation, as
I understand. If I am wrong, I am
willing to be corrected.
Mr. RUSSELL. I do not think
there is any definite limitation on the
amount to be expended to train a
radar operator, for example, in the
Armed Forces, or one who would
operate a tank. However, I think
there is some slight difference between
such an operation and the blanket
authorization here proposed for agen-
cies to engage in training programs
and to broaden and expand them.
It may be a desirable bill. We have
a great many things in Government
that are desirable but not necessary.
I am somewhat dubious about taking
away all of the limitation on the
various agencies as to the amounts
they may expend for this purpose.
We all talk about the $72 billion
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
517
budget and complain about it. I say
we all complain about it; I do not
suppose we all do, but there have
been some complaints about it. The
budget is composed of literally millions
of small items. Everytime we remove
restraints and limitations on spending,
we are simply inviting agencies to
increase their expenditures by a few
thousand dollars here and a few
thousand dollars there. It is the sum
total of all those items that makes up
the $72 billion budget.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. RUSSELL. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. I was going to inquire
whether training civil-service employ-
ees in private institutions will result
in the reduction of personnel in Fed-
eral agencies. The reason I ask that
question is that in times past Congress
has said how fine it would be if private
industry could take over some of the
work being done by Government em-
ployees, do the work in a shorter time
and have it over with, and we would
not have to have so many Federal
employees. We tried following that
principle in some departments, but I
am sorry to say that where work has
been contracted for by private con-
cerns it has not been accompanied with
a corresponding reduction in Federal
personnel. In some cases Federal
personnel seemed to exercise so much
unnecessary supervision over the pri-
vate contractors that not only are
some of the private contractors becom-
ing reluctant to take on such work,
but we have an added expense, that is,
the amount which is paid to the private
institution for carrying on the work
without an accompanying reduction in
Federal personnel.
The reasons for that are too compli-
cated to go into at this time, but we
ought to have some assurance that
when work is transferred to private
contractors it will be accompanied by
a reduction of costs in the Federal
agency involved.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. RUSSELL. I yield.
Mr. CLARK. May I ask the Senator
from Vermont whether the comments
he has just made indicate that he has
an objection to this particular bill,
which, of course, has nothing to do with
contracts with private industry for the
doing of work which the Government
would otherwise do itself?
Mr. AIKEN. I am not familiar with
the provisions of the bill. I just came
to it on the calendar. I have not stud-
ied the bill. I was simply remarking
on the general situation that when we
transfer work from the Federal De-
partments to private industry we ought
to make sure that there will be a cor-
responding decrease in the payroll of
the Federal department involved. I
think there would be a great deal of
merit in doing that.
I have particular reference to testi-
mony which has been received in the
Committee on Foreign Relations with
regard to work done in foreign coun-
tries, in connection with some of our
colleges and universities that have
contracted to carry on some of our eco-
nomic and technical assistance pro-
grams. There is much grumbling that
the work of the contracting agency is
supervised and directed by Federal
employees, to such an extent that, since
they are there, anyway, they might as
well do the work and save additional
expense. In other words, we have two
sets of people doing the work, and they
do not get along very well.
Mr. CLARK. I should like to assure
the Senator from Vermont that the
pending bill, in my judgment, does not
hit the situation which he seems to
have in mind. The bill would merely
permit the Federal Government to give
the same training to its employees, in
technical schools, universities, and
elsewhere, which is the current person-
nel practice in, I think I am safe in
saying, the overwhelming majority of
all of the large corporations of the
United States, which feel, without dis-
sent, that this type of training is in
-------
518
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
the interest of their efficiency and
profit-making opportunities and that
the spending is justified.
Mr. AIKEN. I am not sufficiently
familiar with the details of the bill to
object to it at this time, but the calling
of the bill on the calendar seemed to
afford me a proper vehicle to express
myself on another matter relating to
Government employees, which I think
ought to be called to the attention of
the Congress and which the Congress
ought to look into.
Mr. BUS SELL. I am reluctant to
object to a bill which claims to promote
more efficiency in Government. How-
ever, after some years of service in this
body, I have become exceedingly wary
of bills claiming to reduce the cost of
Government by promoting efficiency in
operation. If all of the bills we have
supported that were supposed to de-
crease costs by promoting efficiency
in operation had achieved the objec-
tives which were claimed by their
sponsors, in my opinion, the budget
would be in the neighborhood of about
$60 billion, instead of being $72 bil-
lion or $73 billion. We must have to
hire a great many new people who have
nothing to do except to chronicle and
record the greatly increased efficiency
of those already on the rolls, if those
bills have really effectuated efficiency.
The more legislation we pass to in-
crease efficiency, the higher the total
number of employees on the payroll.
I see in this bill the seed of a pro-
gram that, by eliminating all the limi-
tations which are in the existing law
on the amount that can be spent, will
be reflected in the budget in years to
come by increased cost to the American
taxpayer.
Mr. PURTELL. Mr. President, I
think the colloquy on the floor points up
what the minority calendar committee
had decided, namely, that a measure
such as this ought not to be passed on
the Consent Calendar. Personally, I
have no objection to the bill. It has the
recommendation of two Hoover Com-
missions. It is a recommendation that
will require the expenditure of eight or
nine hundred thousand dollars. I
think the bill should go over because I
do not believe it is proper Consent Cal-
endar business, and not because I ob-
ject personally to the bill's being
passed.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. PURTELL. I am happy to
yield.
Mr. CLARK. I ask the Senator to
yield to permit me to state for the
RECORD that the bill is not only spon-
sored by the administration, but that
it received the unanimous approval of
the majority and minority members of
the Post Office and Civil Service Com-
mittee. I should like to have that fact
made a matter of record.
Mr. PURTELL. Mr. President, I
should like the RECORD to show a repe-
tition of my statement that I have no
objection to the bill. I am in favor of
it; but I feel the bill ought not pass on
the Consent Calendar.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill will be passed over.
*****
[p. 5581]
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, the
bill, which was sponsored by the ad-
ministration, and was introduced by
the chairman of the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service, provides,
briefly, that the President of the
United States may authorize the heads
of Federal agencies to obtain at non-
Federal facilities training for civilian
officers and employees of their agencies
when they find that such training will
be in the interest of the Government
and not inconsistent with the interest
of national security, and will contrib-
ute to the more effective functioning of
their agencies.
The remainder of the bill merely de-
fines its terms; authorizes the Presi-
dent to make appropriate regulations
for carrying out the provisions of the
bill; provides that the appropriations
or other funds available to other agen-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
519
cies for salaries or expenses shall be
available for the purpose of the bill;
and provides that there shall be no
training unless the head of the agency
or another official designated by him
for that purpose shall so direct.
In general, the purpose of the bill is
to make available to employees in the
Federal service the same opportuni-
ties for training which are now avail-
able to members of the armed services
of the United States.
Two days of hearings were held on
the bill by a subcommittee of the Com-
mittee on Post Office and Civil Service
of which I had the honor to be the
chairman.
Testimony in support of the bill was
adduced from the Federal Bureau of
the Budget, the Civil Service Commis-
sion, the Department of Defense, a
number of civic agencies, a number of
employee groups, and a large number
of educators from educational institu-
tions throughout the country.
No opposition was offered to the bill,
which was reported by the Committee
on Post Office and Civil Service, by the
unanimous vote of both the majority
and the minority members.
The bill, if enacted, will enable the
executive arm of the Federal Govern-
ment to provide the same kind of train-
ing for its employees, whether it be 2
or 3 weeks in a technical school or 8 or
9 months at an institution of higher
learning, as it is almost the unanimous
practice of private industry, among the
larger corporations, to make available
to their employees. I suggest that the
large corporations which are interested
in making a profit, meeting payrolls,
and paying dividends to the stockhold-
ers have adopted such programs be-
cause they know that better training
of personnel makes for the more effi-
cient, economical carrying on of their
business.
I trust that the bill will be approved
by my colleagues.
Mr. President, I offer an amendment
to the committee amendment, and ask
that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated for the infor-
mation of the Senate.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On
page 6, line 14, after the word
"Agency", it is proposed to insert "the
Federal Bureau of Investigation."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from Penn-
sylvania [Mr. CLARK] to the committee
amendment.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I wish
to state the reasons for the amendment.
In section 2 of the bill a number of Fed-
eral agencies are listed, among them
the Central Intelligence Agency, the
Atomic Energy Commission, the Ten-
nessee Valley Authority, and others,
which are exempted from the terms of
the bill because those agencies already
have in effect training programs which
are satisfactory, and they do not need
the general protection provided by the
bill.
Subsequent to the hearings, the Fed-
eral Bureau of Investigation communi-
cated with me and requested that it be
added as an exempt agency. I think all
Senators are familiar with the splendid
training program of the Federal Bu-
reau of Investigation. I am happy, at
its request, to include that agency
among the exempted agencies.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from
Pennsylvania to the committee amend-
ment.
The amendment to the amendment
was agreed to.
The amendment, as amended, was
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on the engrossment and
third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading, read the third time,
and passed.
[p. 5607]
-------
520
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
l.li(3)(b) Vol. 104 (1958), June 26: Amended and passed House, p.
12384
Mr. REES of Kansas.
I think there is general agreement on
the overruling necessity for early en-
actment of legislation to provide a com-
prehensive, governmentwide program
for training Federal civilian employees,
to be applied uniformly to all depart-
ments and agencies to the extent that
uniformity is consistent with individ-
ual needs and requirements and is in
the public interest. This bill will pro-
vide for such a program to be placed in
effect with a minimum of delay. This
legislation was developed on the basis
of the results of our committee studies
over the past years and my personal
consultation with administrative offi-
. cials concerned.
One of the most serious problems re-
sulting from the lack of a sound train-
ing program is that of recruiting and
retaining topflight scientific, engineer-
ing, professional, and technical skills
required in our critical defense effort
and other essential Government func-
tions. It is a fact that opportunity to
continue and broaden knowledge and
qualifications is one of the major objec-
tives of professional personnel. Short-
comings in the Government's program
in this respect have destroyed one of
the finest incentives for outstanding
scientists and other professional peo-
ple to devote their careers to the public
service. This bill will provide this in-
centive and help restore the high pres-
tige which is desirable in professional
assignments under our great Govern-
ment programs. It represents a for-
ward step that can be placed in effect
promptly, with immediate benefits
through development of the full poten-
tial of present employees as well as
recruitment of high-caliber replace-
ments. The added incentives of ad-
vanced professional training and
opportunity for accomplishment will
be a major factor in attracting and re-
taining qualified personnel.
My bill also emphasizes and reaffirms
the desirability of aiding and encour-
aging self-training of employees and
giving proper recognition to those who
develop greater skill on their own initi-
ative. Our studies show that this is an
area that has been overlooked to a
considerable extent.
Our national interest depends on
maintaining our preeminence in scien-
tific, technological, research, and
professional fields in the face of tre-
mendous strides by other nations. Sci-
entific and professional excellence is a
must in the development of complex
instruments—the atomic reactors, elec-
tronic brains, thermonuclear devices,
missiles, and other defensive arms we
need—as well as in the conduct of the
economic, agricultural, cultural, and
social programs of our Government.
Briefly, the purpose of my Govern-
ment employees training bill is, first,
to improve performance and pro-
ductivity in essential Government
programs by providing for training of
employees both in and outside the Gov-
ernment where it is in the public in-
terest; second, to offer incentives for
recruiting and retaining qualified em-
ployees ; and third, to stimulate and
encourage employee self-development
directed toward a higher level of
performance. This legislation will pro-
vide a governmentwide policy of em-
ployee training as a management tool,
better coordination of various train-
ing programs, a centralized point of
training responsibility, and a system
of control and review of the adminis-
tration of training programs.
The bill provides basic and general
legislative authority for interagency,
intra-agency, and outservice training
of Federal employees when such train-
ing will promote efficiency, economy,
and better service.
Government payment of all or any
part of the expenses of such training
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
521
is authorized, with special controls on
expenditures for outservice training,
that is, training outside of the
Government.
This training authority is granted
to departments and agencies in the ex-
ecutive branch—with several necessary
exceptions—the General Accounting
Office, the Library of Congress, the
Government Printing Office, and the
District of Columbia government.
The President is authorized to ex-
empt any department or agency—or
any part thereof—or employees from
any or all provisions of the bill, but he
may not extend its coverage.
Agencies are directed to, first, re-
view their training needs within 90
days after enactment and at least
every 3 years thereafter; second, es-
tablish and maintain training pro-
grams to meet those needs; third, op-
erate these programs in accordance
with law and regulations; fourth, uti-
lize their own resources, and other
Government resources, so far as prac-
ticable; and, fifth, encourage and
recognize employee self-training and
self-development.
General responsibility for coordinat-
ing training programs and assisting
the agencies is imposed on the Civil
Service Commission. The Commission
is directed to, first, promote, coordi-
nate, and assist in agency training
programs; second, issue necessary
standards and regulations after con-
sultation with the agencies as to their
needs; third, review agency training
programs and activities and report
thereon to the President and the Con-
gress; and fourth, enforce compliance
with the law, regulations, and stand-
ards governing outservice training.
It should be noted that certain items to
be covered by the regulations are
spelled out in the bill.
The bill provides an appropriate
measure of legislative controls on out-
service training, including provisions
to the following effect:
First. Every trainee must agree, in
advance, to remain with his agency for
at least three times the length of his
training1 period or repay the costs;
Second. Employees with less than 1
year of continuous service may not be
assigned to outservice training;
Third. An individual may not re-
ceive more than 1 year of outservice
training per 10 years of total service;
Fourth. Outservice training time by
each agency may not exceed 1 percent
of its authorized personnel strength;
Fifth. Outservice training may not
be authorized for the sole purpose of
an individual obtaining an academic
degree; and
Sixth. No agency may authorize
outservice training by an institution
or individual advocating overthrow of
our Government by force or violence or
by an individual found to be of doubt-
ful loyalty.
Provision is made for the Civil
Service Commission to grant excep-
tions to the first four of these limita-
tions when in the public interest.
The bill consolidates into one com-
prehensive law most of the special
training authorities now in existence.
It makes unnecessary, and will repeal,
10 separate laws which now authorize
outservice training of employees.
Also, it eliminates any need for yearly
reenactment of outservice training au-
thority presently granted five agencies
and the District of Columbia govern-
ment through appropriation language.
It will eliminate the need for additional
special legislation—the 11 pending bills
which I mentioned—now being sought
by other departments and agencies.
The bill does not apply to the For-
eign Service, members of the uniformed
forces, the President and the Vice
President, persons appointed by the
President—unless specifically desig-
nated by him—the Tennessee Valley
Authority, and certain officers of cor-
porations supervised by the Farm
Credit Administration.
This legislation provides for a well-
rounded and comprehensive Federal
employee training program which will
serve fully the present and foreseeable
-------
522
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
training needs of our Government.
Mr. Speaker, the fact that we have
before the House today such a complete
and well rounded training bill is a trib-
ute to the outstanding work of the sub-
committee, headed by the gentleman
from South Carolina [Mr. HEMPHILL],
which was assigned the responsible
task of holding hearings and develop-
ing a suitable bill. The members of
the subcommittee are Mrs. GRANAHAN,
Mr. YOUNG, Mr. SCOTT, Mr. BROYHILL,
Mr. JOHANSEN, and Mr. DENNISON.
Their thorough and comprehensive
study of training needs is reflected in
their presentation to the committee and
to the House. I should like to express
appreciation for the fine work of the
subcommittee, both personally and on
behalf of the departments and agencies
and the many Federal employees who
will benefit through training which
will enable them to perform their
duties more efficiently. In my judg-
ment, this legislation will receive over-
whelming public endorsement.
I strongly recommend the enactment
of S. 385 as amended by the committee.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
suspending the rules and passing the
bill.
The question was taken; and (two-
thirds having voted in favor thereof)
the rules were suspended and the bill
was passed.
Mr. MURRAY of Tennessee. Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
all Members may have the privilege of
extending their remarks at this point
in the RECORD on the bill just passed.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Tennessee?
There was no objection.
[p. 12384]
l.li(3)(c) Vol. 104 (1958), June 27: Senate concurs with House
amendment, p. 12464
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lj AMENDMENT TO ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954,
AS AMENDED
August 8,1958, P.L. 85-602, §§ 2, 2[3], 72 Stat. 525
AN ACT
To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 11
o. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended by
substituting a colon for the period at the end thereof and adding
the following: "Provided, however, That as the term is used in
subsection 170 1., it shall mean any such occurrence outside of the
United States rather than within the United States."
SEC. 2.
SEC. 2. Section 170 e. of the Atomic Energy act of 1954, as
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 523
amended, is amended by deleting the second sentence thereof and
inserting in lieu thereof the following: "The Commission or any
person indemnified may apply to the appropriate district court of
the United States having venue in bankruptcy matters over the
location of the nuclear incident, except that in the case of nuclear
incidents caused by ships of the United States outside of the
United States, the Commission or any person indemnified may
apply to the appropriate district court of the United States having
venue in bankruptcy matters over the location of the principal
place of business of the shipping company owning or operating the
ship, and upon a showing that the public liability from a single
nuclear incident will probably exceed the limit of liability im-
posed by this section, shall be entitled to such orders as may be
appropriate for enforcement of the provisions of this section, in-
cluding an order limiting the liability of the persons indemnified,
orders staying the payment of claims and the execution of court
judgments, orders apportioning the payments to be made to claim-
[p. 525]
ants, orders permitting partial payments to be made before final
determination of the total claims, and an order setting aside a part
of the funds available for possible latent injuries not discovered
until a later time."
Approved August 8, 1958.
[p. 526]
1.1 j (1) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
S. REP. No. 1883, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958)
AMENDING THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS
AMENDED
JULY 22,1958.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. ANDERSON, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 4165]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy having considered S.
4165, to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, re-
-------
524 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
ports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that
the bill do pass.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
This bill amends the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, by amending
section 11-0, adding a new subsection 170-1, and amending section
170 e, to extend the provisions of the AEC Indemnity Act to the
nuclearship Savannah, the United States first nuclear powered
merchant ship. The bill is limited to the construction and opera-
tion of that ship, and extends to it the same type of insurance and
indemnity protection as approved by the Congress in Public Law
85-256 last year. The present Atomic Energy Act would cover
the ship while it is within the United States, and this bill is neces-
sary in order to provide indemnity protection during its operations
outside of the continental limits of the United States. The bill
authorizes the Atomic Energy Commission to enter into agree-
ments for indemnification similar to those now being processed by
the Commission for domestic atomic energy licenses, and also pro-
vides for limitation of liability similar to, and in the same amount,
provided in present section 170 e of the Atomic Energy Act.
BACKGROUND
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy considered the problem
posed by this bill at hearings on May 8, July 9, and July 17, 1958.
Testimony was received from representatives of the Atomic En-
ergy Commission and the Maritime Administration. On July 7,
[p. 13
1958, Mr. Price introduced H.R. 13390, the predecessor to this bill,
and similar to it except that the maximum amount of indemnity
provided was $50 million rather than $500 million. The committee
also considered S. 3106 referred to it by the Senate Committee on
Interstate and Foreign Commerce, but concluded that an amend-
ment to the Atomic Energy Act was preferable to an amendment
to the Merchant Marine Act. The Atomic Energy Commission has
had several years of experience in studying liability and indemnity
aspects of nuclear incidents, and has published regulations on this
subject. In addition, the Atomic Energy Commission must license
the nuclearship Savannah to possess nuclear materials and op-
erate the reactor. In the opinion of the Joint Committee it was
therefore desirable to have the Atomic Energy Commission which
has already accumulated experience in this field administer the
indemnity provisions rather than the Maritime Administration.
This would not necessarily constitute a precedent for future ships.
The bill provides that the maximum amount of indemnification
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 525
shall be in the same maximum amount provided by subsection e of
section 170, which is $500 million. Inasmuch as the ship will be
owned and operated under contract to the United States Govern-
ment, it seemed advisable in the opinion of the committee to ex-
tend the same total indemnity as provided by existing law for
domestic powerplants.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy was advised of the pos-
sible indemnity problems arising out of construction and operation
of the nuclearship Savannah, the nuclear powered merchant ship
now under construction and scheduled to commence operation in
1960. In order to remove any possible roadblocks in the operation
of the ship and in order to provide adequate protection to the pub-
lic, the Joint Committee recommends that the provisions of the
AEG Indemnity Act be extended to cover this ship, and that the
Atomic Energy Commission administer the provisions of this bill
in the same manner as the other provisions of the AEC Indemnity
Act enacted by the Congress in 1957.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with subsection 4 of rule XXIX of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as
reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in
italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
roman):
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 [Public Law 83-703, as
amended by Public Law 84-256]:
"SEC. 11. DEFINITIONS.—The intent of Congress in the defini-
tions as given in this section should be construed from the words or
phrases used in the definitions. As used in this Act:
"o. The term 'nuclear incident' means any occurrence within the
United States causing bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death, or
loss of or damage to property, or for loss of use of property, aris-
ing out of or resulting from the radioactive, toxic, explosive, or
other hazardous properties of source, special nuclear, or byproduct
material: Provided, however, That as the term is used in subsec-
[p- 2]
tion 170 I., it shall mean any such occurrence outside of the United
States rather than ivithin the United States.
"SEC. 170. INDEMNIFICATION AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.35—
"a. Each license issued under section 103 or 104 and each
35Public Law 85-256 (71 Stat. 576) added sec 170.
-------
526 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
construction permit issued under section 185 shall, and each
license issued under section 53, 63, or 81 may, have as a con-
dition of the license a requirement that the licensee have and
maintain financial protection of such type and in such
amounts as the Commission shall require in accordance with
subsection 170 b. to cover public liability claims. Whenever
such financial protection is required, it shall be a further
condition of the license that the licensee execute and main-
tain an indemnification agreement in accordance with sub-
section 170 c. The Commission may require, as a further
condition of issuing a license, that an applicant waive any
immunity from public liability conferred by Federal or State
law.
"b. The amount of financial protection required shall be the
amount of liability insurance available from private sources,
except that the Commission may establish a lesser amount on
the basis of criteria set forth in writing, which it may revise
from time to time, taking into consideration such factors as
the following: (1) the cost and terms of private insurance,
(2) the type, size, and location of the licensed activity and
other factors pertaining to the hazard, and (3) the nature and
purpose of the licensed activity: Provided, That for facilities
designed for producing substantial amounts of electricity and
having a rated capacity of 100,000 electrical kilowatts or
more, the amount of financial protection required shall be the
maximum amount available from private sources. Such fi-
nancial protection may include private insurance, private con-
tractual indemnities, self insurance, other proof of financial
responsibility, or a combination of such measures.
"c. The Commission shall, with respect to licenses issued
between August 30, 1954, and August 1, 1967, for which
it requires financial protection, agree to indemnify and hold
harmless the licensee and other persons indemnified, as their
interest may appear, from public liability arising from nu-
clear incidents which is in excess of the level of financial pro-
tection required of the licensee. The aggregate indemnity for
all persons indemnified in connection with each nuclear in-
cident shall not exceed $500,000,000 including the reasonable
costs of investigating and settling claims and defending suits
for damage. Such a contract of indemnification shall cover
public liability arising out of or in connection with the li-
censed activity.
"d. In addition to any other authority the Commission may
have, the Commission is authorized until August 1, 1967, to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 527
enter into agreements of indemnification with its contractors
for the construction or operation of production or utilization
facilities or other activities under contracts for the benefit of
the United States involving activities under the risk of public
liability for a substantial nuclear incident. In such agree-
ments of indemnification the Commission may require its
contractor to provide and maintain financial protection of
[P. 3]
such a type and in such amounts as the Commission shall de-
termine to be appropriate to cover public liability arising out
of or in connection with the contractual activity, and shall
indemnify the persons indemnified against such claims above
the amount of the financial protection required, in the amount
of $500,000,000 including the reasonable costs of investigating
and settling claims and defending suits for damage in the ag-
gregate for all persons indemnified in connection with such
contract and for each nuclear incident. The provisions of
this subsection may be applicable to lump sum as well as cost
type contracts and to contracts and projects financed in whole
or in part by the Commission.
"e. The aggregate liability for a single nuclear incident of
persons indemnified, including the reasonable costs of in-
vestigating and settling claims and defending suits for dam-
age, shall not exceed the sum of $500,000,000 together with
the amount of financial protection required of the licensee or
contractor. [The Commission or any person indemnified may
apply to the appropriate district court of the United States
having venue in bankruptcy matters over the location of the
nuclear incident, and upon a showing that the public liability
from a single nuclear incident will probably exceed the limit
of liability imposed by this section, shall be entitled to such
orders as may be appropriate for enforcement of the pro-
visions of this section, including an order limiting the liability
of the persons indemnified, orders staying the payment of
claims and the execution of court judgments, orders appor-
tioning the payments to be made to claimants, orders permit-
ting partial payments to be made before final determination
of the total claims, and an order setting aside a part of the
funds available for possible latent injuries not discovered un-
til a later time.] The Commission or any person indemnified
may apply to the appropriate district court of the United
States having venue in bankruptcy matters over the location
of the nuclear incident, except that in the case of nuclear
incidents caused by ships of the United States outside of
-------
528 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
the United States, the Commission or any person indemnified
may apply to the appropriate district court of the United
States having venue in bankruptcy matters over the location
of the principal place of business of the shipping company
owning or operating the ship, and upon a shoiving that the
public liability from a single nuclear incident will probably
exceed the limit of liability imposed by this section, shall be
entitled to such orders as may be appropriate for enforce-
ment of the provisions of this section, including an order
limiting the liability of the persons indemnified, orders stay-
ing the payment of claims and the execution of court judg-
ments, orders apportioning the payments to be made to
claimants, orders permitting partial payments to be made
before final determination of the total claims, and an order
setting aside a part of the funds available for possible latent
injuries not discovered until a later time.
"f. The Commission is authorized to collect a fee from all
persons with whom an indemnification agreement is executed
under this section. This fee shall be $30 per year per thou-
sand kilowatts of thermal energy capacity for facilities li-
censed under section 103. For facilities licensed under section
[p. 4]
104, and for construction permits under section 185, the Com-
mission is authorized to reduce the fee set forth above. The
Commission shall establish criteria in writing for determina-
tion of the fee for facilities licensed under section 104, taking
into consideration such factors as (1) the type, size, and lo-
cation of facility involved, and other factors pertaining to
the hazard, and (2) the nature and purpose of the facility.
For other licenses, the Commission shall collect such nominal
fees as it deems appropriate. No fee under this subsection
shall be less than $100 per year.
"g. In administering the provisions of this section, the
Commission shall use, to the maximum extent practicable,
the facilities and services of private insurance organizations,
and the Commission may contract to pay a reasonable com-
pensation for such services. Any contract made under the
provisions of this subsection may be made without regard to
the provisions of section 3709 of the Revised Statutes, as
amended, upon a showing by the Commission that advertising
is not reasonably practicable and advance payments may be
made.
"h. The agreement of indemnification may contain such
terms as the Commission deems appropriate to carry out the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 529
purposes of this section. Such agreement shall provide that
when the Commission makes a determination that the United
States will probably be required to make indemnity pay-
ments under this section, the Commission shall collaborate
with any person indemnified and may approve the payment
of any claim under the agreement of indemnification, appear
through the Attorney General on behalf of the person indem-
nified, take charge of such action, and settle or defend any
such action. The Commission shall have final authority on
behalf of the United States to settle or approve the settlement
of any such claim on a fair and reasonable basis with due re-
gard for the purposes of this Act. Such settlement may in-
clude reasonable expenses in connection with the claim
incurred by the person indemnified.
"i. After any nuclear incident which will probably require
payments by the United States under this section, the Com-
mission shall make a survey of the causes and extent of dam-
age which shall forwith be reported to the Joint Committee,
and, except as forbidden by the provisions of chapter 12 of
this Act or any other law or Executive order, all final findings
shall be made available to the public, to the parties involved
and to the courts. The Commission shall report to the Joint
Committee by April 1, 1958, and every year thereafter on
the operations under this section.
"j. In administering the provisions of this section, the Com-
mission may make contracts in advance of appropriations and
incur obligations without regard to section 3679 of the Re-
vised Statutes, as amended.
"k. [H.R. 13455, reported out by Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy on July 22, 1958, recommends a new sub-
section k.]
"1. The Commission is authorized until August 1, 1967, to
enter into an agreement of indemnification with any person
engaged in the design, development, construction, operation,
repair and maintenance or use of the nuclear-powered ship
authorized by section 716 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936,
and designated the 'nuclear ship Savannah'. In any such
[p. 5]
agreement of indemnification the Commission may require
such person to provide and maintain financial protection of
such a type and in such amounts as the Commission shall de-
termine to be appropriate to cover public liability arising
from a nuclear incident in connection with such design, devel-
opment, construction, operation, repair, maintenance or use
-------
530 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
and shall indemnify the person against such claims above the
amount of the financial protection required, in the maximum
amount provided by subsection e including the reasonable
costs of investigating and settling claims and defending suits
for damage."
[p. 6]
1.1 j(2) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
H.R. REP. No. 2253, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958)
AMENDING THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS
AMENDED
JULY 22,1958.-
-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. PRICE, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, submitted
the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 13456]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy having considered H.R.
13456, an original Committee bill to amend the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, reports favorably thereon without
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
[p. 1]
NOTE : The House Report is the same as the Senate Report.
l.lj(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 104 (1958)
1.1 j (3) (a) July 28: Passed Senate, p. 15233
EXTENSION OF PROVISIONS OF AEC
INDEMNITY ACT TO OPERATIONS
OF NUCLEAR SHIP "SAVANNAH"
The Senate proceeded to consider the
bill (S. 4165) to amend the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Mr. HRUSKA. Mr. President, may
we have an explanation of the bill?
Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, S.
4165 is a bill to extend the provisions of
the AEC Indemnity Act, the so-called
Price-Anderson Act enacted by the
Congress last year, to the operations of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
531
the nuclear ship Savannah, which is
the United States first nuclear-powered
merchant ship and is now under con-
struction.
As indicated by the committee re-
port, Senate Report No. 1883, the com-
mittee considered both this approach
and the approach of S. 3106, referred
to it by the Senate Committee on Inter-
state and Foreign Commerce. The
Joint Committee decided that it would
be preferable, in the case of this first
nuclear-powered merchant ship, to
place responsibility for administering
the indemnity provisions in the Atomic
Energy Commission rather than in the
Maritime Administration. The Atomic
Energy Commission has been studying
the problem of insurance and indem-
nity associated with nuclear incidents
for 3 or 4 years, has had the benefit of
a year of experience under the Price-
Anderson Act, has had many meetings
with the insurance industry, and has
published regulations. For this first
ship it was considered advisable to keep
responsibility in the Atomic Energy
Commission. As indicated in the com-
mittee report, this would not necessar-
ily constitute a precedent for future
ships.
I may say, Mr. President, we recog-
nize that the Committee on Interstate
and Foreign Commerce will want to
have something to say in the future
about these matters, and that is per-
fectly proper. The committee should
have such jurisdiction. However, the
ship is under way. It seemed desirable
to go ahead in the only manner we are
now able to proceed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on the engrossment and
third reading of the bill.
The bill (S. 4165) was ordered to be
engrossed for a third reading, read the
third time, and passed, as follows :
[p. 15233]
l.lj(3)(b) July 29: Passed House, p. 15459
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, S. 1465 is
an identical bill to the bill H.R. 13456
to amend the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, to extend the provi-
sions of the AEC Indemnity Act—the
Price-Anderson Act passed by the Con-
gress last year—to the nuclear ship
Savannah, the United States first nu-
clear-powered merchant ship now
under construction near Camden, N. J.
The ship is now covered by the indem-
nity provisions in the present act so
long as it is within the continental
limits of the United States, and this
legislation is necessary only in order
to cover its operations outside of the
United States. The bill extends to the
Savannah, the same type of coverage,
and in the same amount, as provided
by Public Law 85—256, the AEC
Indemnity Act.
The Joint Committee considered this
matter at hearings on May 8, July 9,
and July 17, 1958. Testimony was re-
ceived from representatives of the
Atomic Energy Commission and the
Maritime Administration. The com-
mittee also considered S. 3106 referred
to it by the Senate Committee on Inter-
state and Foreign Commerce. In sum-
mary, the Joint Committee decided
that, for this first ship, it would be
preferable to place administration of
the indemnity provisions in the Atomic
Energy Commission rather than in the
Maritime Administration. The AEC
has been studying problems of insur-
ance and indemnity protection with re-
spect to nuclear incidents for 3 or 4
years, and has had many studies of
both reactor and insurance problems,
and has had the benefit of a year of ex-
perience under the Price-Anderson
Act. Therefore, for this first ship, it
was considered advisable to place juris-
-------
532
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
diction in the Atomic Energy Com-
mission. However, as the committee
report clearly states, this would not
necessarily constitute a precedent for
future ships.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like
to quote briefly from the comments of
the Joint Committee at page 2 of the
committee's report on this bill:
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy was
advised of the possible indemnity problems
arising out of construction and operation of the
nuclear ship Savannah, the nuclear-powered
merchant ship now under construction and
scheduled to commence operation in 1960. In
order to remove any possible roadblocks in the
operation of the ship and in order to provide
adequate protection to the public, the Joint
Committee recommends that the provisions of
the AEC Indemnity Act be extended to cover
this ship, and that the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion administer the provisions of this bill in the
same manner as the other provisions of the
AEC Indemnity Act enacted by the Congress
in 19B7.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore urge the
House to approve H.R. 13456.
Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
Mr. Speaker, I join Mr. PRICE in
urging the House to approve S. 4165, a
bill to provide indemnity protection
with respect to the nuclear ship Savan-
nah. The Joint Committee gave this
matter careful consideration, and this
bill has the unanimous support of the
Members of that committee, and the
bill, S. 4165, passed the Senate yester-
day. The bill merely extends the exist-
ing provisions of the AEC Indemnity
Act to cover this ship in its operations
both within and without the limits of
the United States.
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the
Joint Committee, I am very interested
in the field of nuclear propulsion for
merchant ships. The Savannah is the
first nuclear-propelled merchant ship,
and I hope that there will soon be
more, especially a nuclear-propelled oil
tanker. I believe that this bill should
be enacted to protect the equipment
manufacturers, the operators of the
ship, and members of the public
I therefore join Mr. PRICE in urging
all Members of the House to approve
S. 4165.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. VAN ZANDT. I yield to the
gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. Are there any similar
ships being built by foreign countries,
and, if so, are we equally protected
against loss by foreign ships?
Mr. VAN ZANDT. In reply to the
gentleman from Iowa, I would say that
to the best of our knowledge we do not
know of any foreign country that, at
the moment, is constructing a nuclear-
powered merchant ship.
Mr. GROSS. Only ice breakers, in
the case of Russia.
Mr. VAN ZANDT. Russia is con-
structing an icebreaker, and so are we.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield ?
Mr. VAN ZANDT. I yield to the
gentleman from California.
Mr. HOSMER. I think the question
asked by the gentleman from Iowa,
however, has brought up a matter that
we are going to have to deal with in
the future as some of these ships do get
on the line, and even in nuclear-pow-
ered stations on land. There is a need
for some international standardization
in connection with these liability and
indemnity matters. The lack of that
at the present time has a great deal of
hampering effect on such things as the
export of reactors and other atomic
products.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
suspending the rules and passing the
bill.
The question was taken; and (two-
thirds having voted in favor thereof)
the rules were suspended and the bill
was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
H. R. 13456 was laid on the table.
[p. 15459]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 533
l.lk AMENDMENTS TO ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954,
AS AMENDED
August 19,1958, P.L. 85-681, §§ 2,4, 6, 7, 72 Stat. 632
SEC. 2. That subsection c. of section 53 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, is amended by deleting in both the first
and second sentences the words "subsection 53a (1) or subsection
53a (2)" and inserting in lieu thereof in both sentences "sub-
section 53a (1), (2) or (4)".
SEC. 4. Section 123c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended by substituting a colon for the period at the
end thereof and adding the following: "Provided, however, That
the Joint Committee, after having received such agreement for
cooperation, may by resolution in writing waive the conditions of
all or any portion of such thirty-day period."
[p. 632]
SEC. 6. Section 161 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended by adding after the word "responsibility"
the following sentence: "Such rates of compensation may be
adopted by the Commission as may be authorized by the Classifica-
tion Act of 1949, as amended, as of the same date such rates are
authorized for positions subject to such Act."
SEC. 7. Section 161 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended by adding the following new subsections:
"t. establish a plan for a succession of authority which will
assure the continuity of direction of the Commission's opera-
tions in the event of a national disaster due to enemy activity.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the person
or persons succeeding to command in the event of disaster in
accordance with the plan established pursuant to this subsec-
tion shall be vested with all of the authority of the Commis-
sion: Provided, That any such succession to authority, and
vesting of authority shall be effective only in the event and as
long as a quorum of three or more members of the Commis-
sion is unable to convene and exercise direction during the
disaster period: Provided further, That the disaster period
includes the period when attack on the United States is im-
minent and the post-attack period necessary to reestablish
normal lines of command;
"u. enter into contracts for the processing, fabricating, sep-
arating, or refining in facilities owned by the Commission of
source, byproduct or other material, or special nuclear mate-
rial, in accordance with and within the period of an agreement
for cooperation while comparable services are available to per-
-------
534 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
sons licensed under section 103 or 104; Provided, That the
prices for services under such contracts shall be no less than
the prices currently charged by the Commission pursuant to
section 161 m.;
"v. (1) enter into contracts for such periods of time as the
Commission may deem necessary or desirable, but not to ex-
ceed five years from the date of execution of the contract, for
the purchase or acquisition of reactor services or services
related to or required by the operation of reactors;
"(2) (A) enter into contracts for such periods of time as
the Commission may deem necessary or desirable for the pur-
chase or acquisition of any supplies, equipment, materials, or
services required by the Commission whenever the Commis-
sion determines that: (i) it is advantageous to the Govern-
ment to make such purchase or acquisition from commercial
sources; (ii) the furnishing of such supplies, equipment, ma-
terials, or services will require the construction or acquisition
of special facilities by the vendors or suppliers thereof; (iii)
the amortization chargeable to the Commission constitutes an
appreciable portion of the cost of contract performance, ex-
cluding cost of materials; and (iv) the contract for such
period is more advantageous to the Government than a sim-
ilar contract not executed under the authority of this sub-
[p. 633]
section. Such contracts shall be entered into for periods not
to exceed five years each from the date of initial delivery of
such supplies, equipment, materials, or services or ten years
from the date of execution of the contracts excluding periods
of renewal under option.
"(B) In entering into such contracts the Commission shall
be guided by the following principles: (i) the percentage of
the total cost of special facilities devoted to contract perform-
ance and chargeable to the Commission should not exceed the
ratio between the period of contract deliveries and the anti-
cipated useful life of such special facilities; (ii) the desir-
ability of obtaining options to renew the contract for
reasonable periods at prices not to include charges for special
facilities already amortized; and (iii) the desirability of re-
serving in the Commission the right to take title to the special
facilities under appropriate circumstances; and
"(3) include in contracts made under this subsection pro-
visions which limit the obligation of funds to estimated an-
nual deliveries and services and the unamortized balance of
such amounts due for special facilities as the parties shall
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY . 535
agree is chargeable to the performance of the contract. Any
appropriation available at the time of termination or there-
after made available to the Comission for operating expenses
shall be available for payment of such costs which may arise
from termination as the contract may provide. The term
'special facilities' as used in this subsection means any land
and any depreciable buildings, structures, utilities, machinery,
equipment, and fixtures necessary for the production or fur-
nishing of such supplies, equipment, materials, or services and
not available to the vendors or suppliers for the performance
of the contract."
[p. 634]
l.lk(l) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
H.R. REP. No. 2272, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958)
AMENDING THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS
AMENDED
JULY 24, 1958.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. DURHAM, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H. R. 13482]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy having considered H. R.
13482, an original committee bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended, report favorably thereon without amend-
ment, and recommend that the bill do pass.
SUMMARY OF BILL
This bill amends various sections of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, as requested by the Atomic Energy Commission,
and revised by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Some of
-------
536 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
the amendments are minor or technical in nature, and there is no
necessary interrelationship between the various sections in the bill.
Briefly, the bill amends the Atomic Energy Act in the following
particulars:
Sections 1 and 2 amend section 53 of the act to authorize the
Commission to issue licenses for the possession of special nuclear
material within the United States for uses which do not fall ex-
pressly within the present provisions of section 53a, and to make a
reasonable charge for such materials. Section 3 amends section 68
of the act to provide a general release of reservations of fissionable
materials or source materials under acquired lands of the United
States as well as public lands.
Section 4 of the bill amends section 123c of the act to provide
that the Joint Committee may waive the normal 30-day waiting
period for proposed international agreements for cooperation.
Section 5 of the bill amends section 145 of the act to authorize
the Commission to grant security clearances prior to completion
of investigation in the event of a state of war declared by the
Congress or a national disaster due to enemy attack.
[p. 1]
Section 6 of the bill amends section 161d of the act to authorize
the Commission to adopt compensation rates on a retroactive basis
as may be authorized by the Classification Act for other Govern-
ment employees.
Section 7 of the bill amends section 161 of the act by adding a
new subsection t to authorize the Commission to establish a suc-
cession of authority within the Commission in the event of a na-
tional disaster due to enemy activities; a new subsection u to
authorize the Commission to enter into contracts for reprocessing
of materials under international agreements for cooperation; and
a new subsection v to authorize the Commission to enter into long-
term contracts in certain limited areas.
Section 8 amends section 166 of the act to authorize the Com-
mission to dispose of contractor and subcontractor records in ac-
cordance with a records disposal schedule agreed upon by the
Commission and the Government Accounting Office.
A more detailed explanation of the provisions of this bill is set
forth in the section-by-section analysis of this report.
BACKGROUND
On June 17, 1958, the Joint Committee received the following
letter from Mr. H. S. Vance, Acting Chairman of the Atomic
Energy Commission to Chairman Durham of the Joint Committee:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 537
UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION,
Washington, D.C., June 17, 1958.
Hon. CARL T. DURHAM,
Chairman, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
Congress of the United States.
DEAR MR. DURHAM: There is transmitted herewith a Commis-
sion proposal in the form of a draft bill which would amend the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, in several particulars.
The proposed legislation is attached as appendix A to this letter,
and an analysis of the legislation is attached as appendix B. The
proposals would provide the Commission with authority to—
(1) issue licenses for the possession of and to distribute special
nuclear material within the United States for uses which do not
expressly fall within the present provisions of section 53a.
(2) request the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy to waive the
30-day waiting period relating to proposed agreements for co-
operation, as provided for in section 123c.
(3) grant security clearances prior to completion of investiga-
tion in the event of a national emergency.
(4) increase compensation rates on a retroactive basis as pay
increases for Government employees subject to the Classification
Act are increased on a retroactive basis.
(5) clarify the Commission's statutory authority to train
employees.
(6) establish a succession of command within the Commission
in the event of a national disaster.
(7) establish fixed charges under international arrangements
for such periods of time as the Commission deems necessary or
desirable for processing, fabricating, etc., of source, byproduct,
special nuclear and other materials.
[p. 2]
(8) authorize the Commission to enter into long-term contracts
in certain limited areas.
(9) dispose of contractor and subcontractor records in ac-
cordance with a records disposal schedule agreed upon between
the Commission and the General Accounting Office.
Proposals numbered (1), (3), (6), (7), and (9) were for-
warded to the Congress on July 25, 1957. These proposals are
incorporated in the draft bill, attached, as a matter of con-
venience, inasmuch as they were not considered during the 1st
session of the 85th Congress. In addition, the Commission has
expanded its original long-term contract proposal, as set forth in
proposal No. 8, which it submitted in a more limited form to the
Congress last year.
-------
538 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
By this letter, the Commission is requesting the withdrawal of
two proposals submitted to the Congress in 1957. The first is a
proposed amendment to section 55 which would have authorized
the Commission to enter into long-term contracts for the purchase
of special nuclear material outside of the United States. The
second proposal is one which would have authorized the Com-
mission to make long-term contracts in connection with coopera-
tive arrangements, as described in section 261a (2). Our request
for the withdrawal of these two amendments is being made, in the
case of the first proposal, for the reason that the method of pur-
chase of special nuclear material outside of the United States and
the term of contract is now under further study, and, in the case
of the second proposal, it would appear that the long-term con-
tract authority can be requested, where appropriate, at the time
the particular cooperative arrangements are brought before the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy for authorization pursuant to
section 261a (2).
The Bureau of the Budget has advised that it has no objection to
our submission of these proposals.
We shall be happy to discuss these matters with the Joint Com-
mittee at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely yours,
H. S. VANCE
(For the Chairman).
[p. 3]
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
The Joint Committee believes that it is a desirable practice for
the Commission to submit and the committee to consider each year
any proposed amendments to the Atomic Energy Act which the
Commission deems desirable to provide the best possible frame-
work for our atomic energy program. In 1957, the Atomic Energy
Commission submitted a number of suggested amendments to the
act but not until July, very late in the session, and the Joint Com-
mittee was unable because of the press of other business of the
committee and the Congress to consider such proposals. In 1958
the committee was advised that the Commission was reconsidering
its 1957 proposals, and that there would be some modifications in
view of subsequent developments. However, the Joint Committee
did not receive the Commission's recommendations until the letter,
dated June 17, 1958, quoted earlier in this report. The committee
strongly recommends that the Commission submit its legislative
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 539
proposals as early as possible each session of Congress, preferably
on or before March 1 of each year. In this manner, the Joint
Committee will thus be in a better position to give the proposals
full consideration.
[P. 4]
In spite of the comparatively short time available, the Joint
Committee was able to hold 3 days of hearings on the bills and to
consider in detail the various provisions and changes recommended
by the Atomic Energy Commission, and also the recommendations
of the General Accounting Office. After due consideration, the
Joint Committee decided upon the language of this bill. The
purposes and intent of the various individual provisions are
described below in the section-by-section analysis.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
*******
Section 2 of the bill, as a conforming amendment to section 1,
amends subsection c of section 53 by providing that the Commis-
sion may make a reasonable charge for the use of such special
nuclear material licensed and distributed under the new section
53a (4) added by section 1 of this bill. It is intended that when
the material is being distributed for commercial uses, the Com-
mission will make a reasonable charge therefor.
* * * * % :]: *
Section 4 of the bill amends section 123c of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, by adding a proviso that the Joint Com-
mittee, after having received an agreement for cooperation, may
by resolution in writing waive the conditions of all or any portion
of the normal 30-day waiting period. Section 123c now provides
that a proposed agreement for cooperation in the field of the peace-
[P. 5]
ful uses of atomic energy must be submitted to the Joint Com-
mittee for a period of 30 days while Congress is in session before
it may become effective. The purpose of this proviso would be to
permit the Joint Committee, in the closing days of the session,
before adjourning to consider any pending proposed agreements
and to waive the requirement of any further waiting period, or to
permit waiver while Congress was not in session, if the Joint
Committee deemed such waiver desirable.
If the Joint Committee does not waive the period, any proposed
agreement must remain before it for the full 30 days while Con-
gress is in session. This amendment does not, of course, affect
-------
540 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
subsection 123d concerning agreements for cooperation to transfer
military information or materials. These must be submitted to
the Congress and the Joint Committee for a period of 60 days while
Congress is in session (except the 85th Congress where the period
is 30 days), and no provision for waiver is made in subsection
123d.
Section 6 of the bill amends section 161d of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, by adding a sentence to the effect that the
Commission may adopt rates of compensation as may be authorized
by the Classification Act of 1949 as of the same date such rates are
authorized for persons subject to the Classification Act. This
sentence is necessary because Atomic Energy Commission em-
ployees are specifically exempted from the Classification Act, and
in some instances in the past, have therefore not received raises
made under the Classification Act as of the same date as most
other Federal Government employees. The Joint Committee is, of
course, anxious that the Commission continue to be able to obtain
high caliber employees, and therefore recommends this provision
requested by the Atomic Energy Commission.
Section 7 of the bill amends section 161 of the Atomic Energy
Act by adding new subsections t, u, and v. Each of these will be
briefly discussed below in turn. Subsection 161 of the Atomic
Energy Act is the general authority section of the act and pro-
vides that in the performance of its functions the Commission shall
be authorized to take various actions as provided in the various
subsections of section 161.
New subsection 161 t would authorize the Commission to es-
tablish a plan for succession of authority to assure the continuity
of direction of the Commission's operations in the event of a na-
tional disaster due to enemy activity. Because of the civilian
nature of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Joint Committee
changed the words in the bill as submitted by the Commission
[p. 6]
from "succession of command" to "succession of authority."
New subsection 161 u would authorize the Commission to enter
into contracts for the reprocessing in AEC facilities of materials in
accordance with the terms of an international agreement for co-
operation while comparable services are available to domestic li-
censees, provided that the prices for services under such contracts
shall be no less than the prices currently established by the Com-
mission for domestic licensees under section 161 m. The original
language submitted by the Commission for proposed new sub-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 541
section 161 u did not provide that the period would be limited to
the period of agreement for cooperation or to comparable periods
offered to domestic users, and that the prices would be no less than
the prices currently charged to domestic users. In response to a
request made by the subcommittee at the hearing on July 10, 1958,
the Commission, by letter dated July 16, 1958, suggested new
language and the Joint Committee approved such revised language
for subsection 161u.
Section 7 of the bill adds a new subsection v to section 161 of the
act to authorize the Commission to enter into long-term contracts
in certain limited areas. Subsection v contains clauses (1), (2),
and (3) as described below.
Clause (1) pertains to contracts, not to exceed 5 years from the
date of execution thereof, for the purpose of acquisition of reactor
services or services related to or required by the operation of re-
actors. The Joint Committee after the hearing deleted from the
bill the following additional language in the bill as originally sub-
mitted by the Commission:
including but not limited to chemical processing or repro-
cessing of irradiated material or fission products * * *.
The most immediate urgency expressed by the Commission during
the hearing was the need for more test reactor services. If ad-
ditional authority is needed at a later date for long-term contract
authority for reprocessing materials, a further amendment to the
act to provide such authority can be requested by the Commission
at that time.
Clause (2) of proposed new subsection 161v provides, in sub-
paragraph (A) thereof, that the Commission is authorized to enter
into contracts for such periods of time as the Commission may
deem necessary or desirable (up to a maximum of 5 years of de-
livery as provided later in the paragraph) for the purchase or
acquisition of any supplies, equipment, materials, or services re-
quired by the Commission whenever the Commission makes four
determinations as follows:
First, that it is advantageous to the Government to make
such purchase or acquisition from commercial sources, rather
than from AEC or other governmental facilities or sources;
Second, that the furnishing of such supplies, equipment,
materials, or services requires the construction or acquisition
of "special facilities" by the vendors or suppliers thereof.
The term "special facilities" as used in subsection v is defined
in clause (3) of the subsection;
Third, that the amortization chargeable to the Commission
-------
542 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
constitutes an appreciable portion of the cost of contract per-
formance, excluding cost of materials; and
[P. 7]
Fourth, that the contract for such period is more advant-
ageous to the Government than a similar contract not ex-
ecuted under the authority of this subsection.
It is further provided that such contracts shall be entered into
for periods not to exceed 5 years each from the date of initial de-
livery or 10 years from the date of execution, excluding periods
of renewal under option.
The new authority of subsection v was requested by the Com-
mission because of a decision of the Controller General in 1957
that, in the absence of specific statutory authority, the Commis-
sion's annual appropriations for operating expenses might be used
only for payment of expenses properly incurred during the fiscal
year or for payments under contracts "properly" made within that
year. The Controller General's opinion further stated that, in the
absence of special statutory authority, a contract was "properly"
made only when it satisfied a bona fide need for services for that
particular fiscal year.
The purpose of the new provision is to permit the Commission
to enter into long-term contracts when it might be to the Govern-
ment's advantage to contract on a long-term basis where special
facilities are required rather than on a year-to-year basis for the
needs of the Commission's program. Some materials, for example,
initially have little commercial value outside the Commission's pro-
gram and in some instances it would save the Government money
to make such purchases on a long-term basis rather than on a year-
to-year basis.
The purpose of the determinations is to require the AEC to ex-
plore the use of Government-owned facilities, and other means of
short-term contracting, before adopting the procedure of long-
term contracts whereby the Government pays the amortization for
all or part of the privately owned facilities.
Subparagraph (B) of clause (2) of new subsection 161v pro-
vides that in entering into such contracts the Commission shall be
guided by the following principles: First, the percentage of the
total cost of special facilities devoted to contract performance and
chargeable to the Commission should not exceed the ratio between
the period of contract deliveries and the anticipated useful life of
such special facilities. It is understood that "useful life" means
useful commercial life of the facility for the product or services
contracted for, including obsolescence, and for other purposes,
rather than the physical life of the special facilities.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 543
Second, the Commission should consider the desirability of ob-
taining options to renew the contract for reasonable periods at
prices not to include charges for special facilities already amor-
tized. In the normal instance, it would appear desirable, as a part
of good contracting practice, to include such options in order to
obtain the materials, if still needed in the Commission's program,
or a similar additional period or periods after the special facility
has been completely or partly amortized, and therefore normally
at a lower price to the Commission.
Third, the desirability of reserving in the Commission the right
to take title to the special facilities under appropriate circum-
stances, such as in the event of war, or for national defense pur-
poses. In such event, the Commission would, of course, pay the
contractor the value of the unamortized portion of the special
facility.
In specifying these principles, the committee did not mean to
negative other principles of good contracting, such as obtaining
competitive proposals, etc.
[P. 8]
Clause (3) of new subsection 161v authorizes the Commission to
include in contracts made under subsection v provisions which
limit the obligation of funds as a maximum to estimated annual
deliveries and services and the unamortized balance of such
amounts due for special facilities as the parties shall agree is
chargeable to the performance of the contract.
Clause (3) also provides that any appropriation available at the
time of termination or thereafter made available to the Commis-
sion for operating expenses shall be available for payment of such
costs which may arise from termination as the contract may pro-
vide. Under this authority it will not be necessary for the Com-
mission to obligate or set aside the total termination charges at
the time of entering into the contract under subsection v.
Clause (3) also defines the term "special facilities" as used in
clauses (1) and (3) of the subsection.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In accordance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law recommended
by the bill accompanying this report are shown as follows (new
matter is printed in italic, deleted matter is enclosed in black
brackets):
-------
544 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED
*******
"SEC. 53. DOMESTIC DISTRIBUTION OF SPECIAL NUCLEAR MA-
TERIAL.—
"a. The Commission is authorized to issue licenses for the pos-
session of, to make available for the period of the license, and to
distribute special nuclear material within the United States to
qualified applicants requesting such material—
"(1) for the conduct of research and development activ-
ities of the types specified in section 31;
"(2) for use in the conduct of research and development
activities or in medical therapy under a license issued pursu-
ant to section 104; [or]
"(3) for use under a license issued pursuant to section
103 [.];
"(4) for such other uses as the Commission determines to be
appropriate to carry out the purposes of this Act.
"b. The Commission shall establish, by rule, minimum criteria
for the issuance of specific or general licenses for the distribution
of special nuclear material depending upon the degree of im-
[P. 9]
portance to the common defense and security or to the health and
safety of the public of—
"(1) the physical characteristics of the special nuclear
material to be distributed;
"(2) the quantities of special nuclear material to be dis-
tributed; and
" (3) the intended use of the special nuclear material to be
distributed.
"c. The Commission may make a reasonable charge, determined
pursuant to this section, for the use of special nuclear material
licensed and distributed under [subsection 53 a. (1) or subsection
53 a. (2)] subsections 53 a. (1), (2) or (4) and shall make a rea-
sonable charge determined pursuant to this sectron for the use of
special nuclear material licensed and distributed under subsection
53 a. (3). The Commission shall establish criteria in writing for
the determination of whether a charge will be made for the use of
special nuclear material licensed and distributed under [subsection
53 a. (1) or subsection 53 a. (2)] subsection 53 a. (1) (2) or (4),
considering, among other things, whether the licensee is a non-
profit or eleemosynary institution and the purposes for which the
special nuclear material will be used.
*******
[p. 10]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 545
"SEC. 123. COOPERATION WITH OTHER NATIONS.—No coopera-
tion with any nation or regional defense organization pursuant to
sections 54, 57, 64, 82, 103, 104, or 144 shall be undertaken until—
"a. the Commission or, in the case of those agreements for
cooperation arranged pursuant to subsection 144 b., the De-
partment of Defense has submitted to the President the
proposed agreement for cooperation, together with its rec-
ommendation thereon, which proposed agreement shall in-
clude (1) the terms, conditions, duration, nature, and scope
of the cooperation; (2) a guaranty by the cooperating party
that security safeguards and standards as set forth in the
agreement for cooperation will be maintained; (3) a guaranty
by the cooperating party that any material to be transferred
pursuant to such agreement will not be used for atomic wea-
pons, or for research on or development of atomic weapons,
or for any other military purpose; and (4) a guaranty by the
cooperating party that any material or any Restricted Data to
be transferred pursuant to the agreement for cooperation will
not be transferred to unauthorized persons or beyond the jur-
isdiction of the cooperating party, except as specified in the
agreement for cooperation;
"b. the President has approved and authorized the execu-
tion of the proposed agreement for cooperation, and has made
a determination in writing that the performance of the pro-
posed agreement will promote and will not constitute an un-
reasonable risk to the common defense and security; and
"c. the proposed agreement for cooperation, together with
the approval and the determination of the President, has been
submitted to the Joint Committee and a period of thirty days
has elapsed while Congress is in session (in computing such
thirty days, there shall be excluded the days on which either
House is not in session because of an adjournment of more
than three days) [.]; Provided, however, That the Joint Com-
mittee, after having received such agreement for cooperation,
may by resolution in writing waive the conditions of all or any
portion of such thirty-day 'period.
*******
[p. 11] '
"SEC. 161. GENERAL PROVISIONS.—In the performance of its
functions the Commission is authorized to—
[p. 12]
"d. appoint and fix the compensation of such officers and
-------
546 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
employees as may be necessary to carry out the functions of
the Commission. Such officers and employees shall be ap-
pointed in accordance with the civil-service laws and their
compensation fixed in accordance with the Classification Act
of 1949, as amended, except that, to the extent the Commis-
sion deems such action necessary to the discharge of its
responsibilities, personnel may be employed and their com-
pensation fixed without regard to such laws: Provided, how-
ever, That no officer or employee (except such officers and
employees whose compensation is fixed by law, and scientific
and technical personnel up to a limit of $19,000 2f)) whose posi-
tion would be subject to the Classification Act of 1949, as
amended, if such Act were applicable to such position, shall
be paid a salary at a rate in excess of the rate payable under
such Act for positions of equivalent difficulty or responsibility.
Such rates of compensation may be adopted by the Commis-
sion as may be authorized by the Classification Act of 1949, as
amended, as of the same date such rates are authorized for
positions subject to such Act. The Commission shall make
adequate provision for administrative review of any deter-
mination to dismiss any employee,
*******
"t. establish a plan for succession of authority ivhich will
assure the continuity of direction of the Commission's opera-
tions in the event of a national disaster due to enemy activity.
Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the person
or persons succeeding to command in the event of disaster in
accordance with the plan established pursuant to this sub-
section shall be vested with all of the authority of the Com-
mission: Provided, That any such succession to authority, and
vesting of authority shall be effective only in the event and as
long as a quorum of three or more members of the Commis-
sion is unable to convene and exercise direction during the
disaster period: Provided further, That the disaster period
includes the period ivhen attack on the United States is im-
minent and the post-attack period necessary to reestablish
normal lines of command;
"u. enter into contracts for the processing, fabricating,
separating, or refining in facilities o^vned by the Commission
of source, byproduct or other material, or special nuclear ma-
terial, in accordance ivith and within the period of an agree-
ment for cooperation ivhile comparable services are available
to persons licensed under section 103 or 104: Provided, That
the prices for services under such contracts shall be no less
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 547
than the prices currently charged by the Commission pursu-
ant to section 161 m.;
"v. (1) enter into contracts for such periods of time as the
Commission may deem necessary or desirable, but not to exceed
fire years from the date of execution of the contract, for the
purchase, or acquisition of reactor services or services related
to or required by the operation of reactors;
"(2) (A) enter into contracts for such periods of time as
the Commission may deem necessary or desirable for the pur-
chase or acquisition of any supplies, equipment, materials, or
services required by the Commission whenever the Commis-
sion determines that: (i) it is advantageous to the Govern-
ment to make such purchase or acquisition from commercial
sources; (ii) the furnishing of such supplies, equipment, ma-
te- 13]
terials, or services will require the construction or acquisition
of special facilities by the vendors or suppliers thereof; (Hi)
the amortization chargeable to the Commission constitutes an
appreciable portion of the cost of contract performance, ex-
cluding cost of materials; and (iv) the contract for such
period is m.ore advantageous to the Government than a sim-
ilar contract not executed under the authority of this sub-
section. Such contracts shall be entered into for periods not
to exceed five years each from the date of initial delivery of
such supplies, equipment, materials, or services or ten years
from the date of execution of the contracts excluding periods
of renewal tinder option.
" (B) In entering into such contracts the Commission shall
be guided by the following principles: (i) the percentage of
the total cost of special facilities devoted to contract perform-
ance and chargeable to the Commission should not exceed the
ratio between the period of contract deliveries and the an-
ticipated useful life of such special facilities; (ii) the desir-
ability of obtaining options to renew,' the contract for
reasonable periods at prices not to include charges for special
facilities already amortized; and (Hi) the desirability of re-
serving in the Commission the right to take title to the special
facilities under appropriate circumstances; and
"(3) include in contracts made under this subsection pro-
visions which limit the obligation of funds to estimated annual
deliveries and services and the unamortized balance of such
amounts due for special facilities as the parties shall agree is
chargeable to the performance of the contract. Any ap-
propriation available at the time of termination or thereafter
-------
548 LEGAL COMPILATION — RADIATION
made available to the Commission for operating expenses
shall be available for payment of such costs which may arise
from termination as the contract may provide. The term
"special facilities" as used in this subsection means any land
and any depreciable buildings, structures, utilities, machinery,
equipment, and fixtures necessary for the production or fur-
nishing of such supplies, equipment, materials, or services
and not available to the vendors or suppliers for the per-
formance of the contract.
[P- 14]
l.lk(2) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
S. REP. No. 1944, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958)
NOTE : The Senate Report is the same as the House Report.
AMENDING THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS
AMENDED
JULY 24 (legislative day, JULY 23), 1958.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. ANDERSON, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following '
REPORT
[To accompany S. 4166]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy having considered S.
4166, a bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
reports favorably thereon without amendment, and recommends
that the bill do pass.
SUMMARY OP BILL
This bill amends various sections of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, as requested by the Atomic Energy Commission,
and revised by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. Some of
the amendments are minor or technical in nature, and there is no
necessary interrelationship between the various sections in the bill.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
549
Briefly, the bill amends the Atomic Energy Act in the following
particulars:
Sections 1 and 2 amend section 53 of the act to authorize the
Commission to issue licenses for the possession of special nuclear
material within the United States for uses which do not fall ex-
pressly within the present provisions of section 53a, and to make
a reasonable charge for such materials. Section 3 amends section
68 of the act to provide a general release of reservations of fission-
able materials or source materials under acquired lands of the
United States as well as public lands.
Section 4 of the bill amends section 123c of the act to provide
that the Joint Committee may waive the normal 30-day waiting
period for proposed international agreements for cooperation.
Section 5 of the bill amends section 145 of the act to authorize
the Commission to grant security clearances prior to completion
of investigation in the event of a state of war declared by the
Congress or a national disaster due to enemy attack.
Section 6 of the bill amends section 161d of the act to authorize
the Commission to adopt compensation rates on a retroactive basis
as
l.lk(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 104 (1958)
l.lk(3)(a) July 29: Passed House, p. 15488
Mr. KEOGH.
*****
My colleague, Congressman JOHN F.
BALDWIN, JR., of California, had one of
these problems in his district and he
testified in support of this bill during
the public hearing. In addition, the
committee was advised that this provi-
sion received the support of the Atomic
Energy Commission and the Depart-
ment of Interior, and was approved by
the Bureau of the Budget. Also, the
committee received letters from the
chairman of both the Senate and House
Committees on Government Operations
recommending that this provision be
passed as general legislation to correct
a problem which had necessitated num-
erous individual bills referred to those
committees.
I would like also to say a few words
about section 7 of this bill, which
amends section 161 of the Atomic
Energy Act—the general authority
section of the act—by adding three new
subsections, t, u, and v. Of these, sub-
section v authorizes the Commission to
enter into long-term contracts in cer-
tain limited areas. The Subcommittee
on Legislation considered this matter
very carefully, and received testimony
from representatives of the General
Accounting Office as well as the Atomic
Energy Commission. The subcommit-
tee modified the language originally
requested by the Atomic Energy Com-
mission in certain respects in order to
incorporate the suggestions of the
GAO, and also to add certain deter-
minations which the Commission must
-------
550
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
make, and certain principles which the
Commission should follow in entering
into these contracts. The Joint Com-
mittee report states as follows at page
8:
The purpose of the determinations is to
require the AEC to explore the use of Govern-
ment-owned facilities, and other means of short-
term contracting, before adopting the procedure
of long-term contracts whereby the Government
pays the amortization for all or part of the
privately owned facilities.
*****
In specifying these principles, the committee
did not mean to negative other principles of
good contracting, such as obtaining competitive
proposals, etc.
Mr. Speaker, I have attempted to de-
scribe only two of the sections of the
bill. The other sections are mostly
minor or technical in nature and are
described in the committee report.
This bill has the unanimous support
of the Joint Committee, and was re-
quested by the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion and the administration, and I
therefore urge all Members to support
H.R. 13482.
Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Speaker, I
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California [Mr. BALDWIN].
Mr. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I
would like to express my appreciation
to the gentleman from California [Mr.
HOLIFIELD] and members of the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy for in-
cluding section 3 in this bill, which
amends section 68 of the act to provide
a general release of reservations of
fissionable materials, or source mate-
rials, under acquired lands of the
United States, as well as public lands.
I happen to have one of those situa-
tions in my district in the city of
Richmond, Calif. The redevelopment
agency of the city of Richmond has
found the reservation of fissionable ma-
terials a material obstacle in disposing
of the land involved, for redevelopment
purposes. This action by the Joint
Committee will clarify the situation
and they will appreciate a great deal
the action being taken today.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. The gentleman
is correct. This will also take care of
several matters throughout the United
States that have been brought to the
attention of the committee.
Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague
[Mr. HOLIFIELD], the distinguished
chairman of the Subcommittee on Leg-
islation of the Joint Committee, in sup-
porting H.R. 13482.
This bill is the so-called AEC omni-
bus bill and contains various amend-
ments to the Atomic Energy Act, most
of them minor or technical in nature,
which are necessary in order to keep
the act up to date and capable of pro-
viding a framework for our growing
atomic energy program. The provi-
sions of this bill follow closely the rec-
ommendations of the Atomic Energy
Commission and draft bills which were
submitted by the AEC with approval
by the Bureau of the Budget.
This bill will assist the Atomic En-
ergy Commission to carry out its many
important responsibilities, and I there-
fore urge all Members to approve
H.R. 13482.
Mr. Speaker, I have no further re-
quests for time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
suspending the rules and passing the
bill.
The question was taken; and (two-
thirds having voted in favor thereof)
the rules were suspended and the bill
was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
[p. 15488]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 551
l.lk(3)(b) Aug. 5: Passed Senate, p. 16189
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.11 AMENDMENTS TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954,
AS AMENDED
August 23, 1958, P.L. 85-744, 72 Stat. 837
AN ACT
To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Be it enacted by the Seriate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 170
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended by
adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:
"k. With respect to any license issued pursuant to section 53,
63, 81, 104a., or 104c. for the conduct of educational activities to a
person found by the Commission to be a nonprofit educational
institution, the Commission shall exempt such licensee from the
financial protection requirement of subsection 170 a. With re-
spect to licenses issued between August 30, 1954, and August 1,
1967, for which the Commission grants such exemption:
"(1) the Commission shall agree to indemnify and hold
harmless the licensee and other persons indemnified, as their
interests may appear, from public liability in excess of $250,-
000 arising from nuclear incidents. The aggregate indemnity
for all persons indemnified in connection with each nuclear
incident shall not exceed $500,000,000, including the reason-
able cost of investigating and settling claims and defending
suits for damage;
[p. 837]
"(2) such contracts of indemnification shall cover public
liability arising out of or in connection with the licensed ac-
tivity; and shall include damage to property of persons in-
demnified, except property which is located at the site of and
used in connection with the activity where the nuclear in-
cident occurs; and
"(3) such contracts of indemnification, when entered into
with a licensee having- immunity from public liability because
it is a State agency, shall provide also that the Commission
shall make payments under the contract on account of ac-
tivities of the licensee in the same manner and to the same
-------
552 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
extent as the Commission would be required to do if the li-
censee were not such a State agency.
Any licensee may waive an exemption to which it is entitled under
this subsection."
Approved August 23, 1958.
[p. 838]
1.11(1) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
H.R. REP. No. 2250, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958)
AMENDING THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS
AMENDED
JULY 22,1958.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. PRICE, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, submitted
the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 13455]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered H.R.
13455, an original committee bill to amend the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, report favorably thereon without amend-
ment, and recommend that the bill do pass.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
This bill adds a new subsection k to section 170 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 concerning indemnification and limitation of
liability. The new subsection k provides that with respect to any
license for the conduct of educational activities issued pursuant to
certain sections of the act to a person found by the Commission to
be a nonprofit educational institution, the Commission shall ex-
empt such licensee from the financial protection requirement of
subsection 170a. Subsection 170 now provides that each such
license shall have as a condition a requirement that the licensee
have and maintain "financial protection" of such type and in such
amounts as the Commission shall require. However, numerous
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 553
State-owned educational institutions indicated that requirements
of State law granted them immunity from tort liability and for-
bade them from paying premiums for liability insurance protec-
tion, and therefore that they might not be able to obtain licenses
and participate in the program. It is the purpose of this legisla-
tion to authorize the Commission to exempt nonprofit educational
activities from the normal requirement of obtaining "financial
protection" in order to receive the benefits of section 170 of the
act.
[P. i]
Clauses 1, 2, and 3 of subsection k, in substance, make applicable
to the exempted licensee the same type of indemnity and pro-
cedures as are now applicable to other persons indemnified under
section 170 of the act.
Finally, the bill provides that any licensee may waive the exemp-
tion to which it is entitled under this subsection.
BACKGROUND
The problems which made necessary this bill were first brought
to the attention of the Joint Committee at a public hearing held on
May 8, 1958, concerning the operations of the AEC Indemnity Act.
During this hearing the following representatives of the Atomic
Energy Commission testified on this subject:
Mr. Harold L. Price, Director, Division of Licensing and Reg-
ulations, AEC
Mr. Edward Diamond, Associate General Counsel, AEC
Following this hearing the Joint Committee received commun-
ications from a number of representatives of educational institu-
tions and from the National Association of Attorneys General in-
dicating the need for corrective legislation to make possible the
exemption of State-owned agencies from the financial protection
requirement of subsection 170a of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
In addition, the Joint Committee received letters or statements of
opposition to the proposed legislation from two insurance groups.
On June 27, 1958, Mr. Price introduced H.R. 13190, and Senator
Anderson introduced S. 4069, identical bills, the predecessors of
this bill.
On July 9, 1958, the Subcommittee on Research and Develop-
ment held a public hearing at which the following witnesses tes-
tified concerning H.R. 13190 and S. 4069:
Mr. Harold L. Price, Director, Division of Licensing and Reg-
ulations, AEC.
Mr. Paul M. Peterson, general counsel, University of Missouri.
-------
554 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
Subsequently, on July 17, 1958, after receipt of the letters from
the insurance companies, a further public hearing was held and
testimony was received concerning these bills as well as others.
On July 18, 1958, Mr. Price filed a clean bill, H.R. 13455, which
was identical to H.R. 13190 except that licenses issued under sec-
tions 53, 63, and 81 of the act were included in subsection 170k as
well as licensees issued under 104a or 104c.
On July 21, 1958, Senator Anderson introduced a bill, S. 4164,
which was identical to H.R. 13455.
At a meeting of the Joint Committee on July 22, 1958, the com-
mittee voted to report this bill favorably to the Congress with the
recommendation that it be passed.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
The Joint Committee believes that this legislation is necessary in
order to encourage and make possible continuing and increasing
contributions by nonprofit educational institutions in the atomic
[p. 2]
energy research and training program. Without this legislation,
many State institutions might be forced to withdraw from the
program or discontinue their plans to obtain and operate research
and training reactors. The Joint Committee believes that such
institutions are in a position to make a tremendous contribution
in this important field and believes that this legislation is there-
fore necessary.
The Joint Committee recognized that the most acute problem is
faced by State agencies because of provisions of State law which
make it impossible for them to make payments for liability in-
surance premiums.
However, the Joint Committee believed that the bill should apply
to all nonprofit educational institutions, including privately owned
and sponsored nonprofit educational institutions, because such in-
stitutions are also participating in the program. It is recognized
that the Commission is making educational grants to such in-
stitutions and it would seem inconsistent not to extend to them the
same benefits as to State-owned agencies. The Joint Committee
did not consider this to be a serious inroad in the coverage of the
act and insofar as the insurance companies are concerned. Nor
does the committee regard it as a necessary precedent for other
.exclusions.
It is recognized that within the scope of "educational activities"
could be included incidental nonprofit research conducted in re-
actors for outside organizations and industries.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 555
During the hearings it was suggested that the bill should specify
that it apply to each construction permit issued under section 185
as well as to any license issued pursuant to section 104a or 104c.
However, the committee decided that this was unnecessary in view
of the last sentence of section 185 which reads as follows:
For all other purposes of this Act, a construction permit
is deemed to be a "license".
It is therefore intended that the Commission shall take cog-
nizance of the above-quoted sentence and that the bill will apply to
construction permits for facilities under 104a and 104c as well as
for operating licenses under section 104a or 104c.
In addition, during the hearing the definition of "state agency"
was discussed, and it is understood that this term includes mu-
nicipally owned agencies as well as State-owned agencies.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In accordance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the
bill as reported are shown as follows (new matter is printed in
italic):
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (Public Law 83-703, as
amended by Public Law 84-256):
"SEC. 170. INDEMNIFICATION AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.—
"a. Each license issued under section 103 or 104 and each
construction permit issued under section 185 shall, and each
license issued under section 53, 63, or 81 may, have as a con-
dition of the license a requirement that the licensee have and
maintain financial protection of such type and in such
amounts as the Commission shall require in accordance with
subsection 170 b. to cover public liability claims. Whenever
such financial protection is required, it shall be a further con-
[p. 3]
dition of the license that the licensee execute and maintain an
indemnification agreement in accordance with subsection 170 c.
The Commission may require, as a further condition of issuing
a license, that an applicant waive any immunity from public
liability conferred by Federal or State law.
"b. The amount of financial protection required shall be the
amount of liability insurance available from private sources,
except that the Commission may establish a lesser amount on
the basis of criteria set forth in writing, which it may revise
from time to time, taking into consideration such factors as
the following: (1) the cost and terms of private insurance,
-------
556 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
(2) the type, size, and location of the licensed activity and
other factors pertaining to the hazard, and (3) the nature and
purpose of the licensed activity: Provided, That for facilities
designed for producing substantial amounts of electricity and
having a rated capacity of 100,000 electrical kilowatts or
more, the amount of financial protection required shall be the
maximum amount available from private sources. Such fi-
nancial protection may include private insurance, private con-
tractual indemnities, self insurance, other proof of financial
responsibility, or a combination of such measures.
"c. The Commission shall, with respect to licenses issued
between August 30, 1954, and August 1, 1967, for which it
requires financial protection, agree to indemnify and hold
harmless the licensee and other persons indemnified, as their
interest may appear, from public liability arising from nu-
clear incidents which is in excess of the level of financial pro-
tection required of the licensee. The aggregate indemnity for
all persons indemnified in connection with each nuclear in-
cident shall not exceed $500,000,000 including the reasonable
costs of investigating and settling claims and defending suits
for damage. Such a contract of indemnification shall cover
public liability arising out of or in connection with the li-
censed activity.
"d. In addition to any other authority the Commission may
have, the Commission is authorized until August 1, 1967, to
enter into agreements of indemnification with its contractors
for the construction or operation of production or utilization
facilities or other activities under contracts for the benefit of
the United States involving activities under the risk of public
liability for a substantial nuclear incident. In such agree-
ments of indemnification the Commission may require its con-
tractor to provide and maintain financial protection of such a
type and in such amounts as the Commission shall determine
to be appropriate to cover public liability arising out of or in
connection with the contractual activity, and shall indemnify
the persons indemnified against such claims above the amount
of the financial protection required, in the amount of $500,-
000,000 including the reasonable costs of investigating and
settling claims and defending suits for damage in the aggre-
gate for all persons indemnified in connection with such con-
tract and for each nuclear incident. The provisions of this
subsection may be applicable to lump sum as well as cost type
contracts and to contracts and projects financed in whole or
in part by the Commission. [p. 4]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 557
"e. The aggregate liability for a single nuclear incident of
persons indemnified, including the reasonable costs of in-
vestigating and settling claims and defending suits for dam-
age, shall not exceed the sum of $500,000,000 together with
the amount of financial protection required of the licensee or
contractor. The Commission or any person indemnified
may apply to the appropriate district court of the United
States having venue in bankruptcy matters over the location
of the nuclear incident, and upon a showing that the public
liability from a single nuclear incident will probably exceed
the limit of liability imposed by this section, shall be entitled
to such orders as may be appropriate for enforcement of the
provisions of this section, including an order limiting the li-
ability of the persons indemnified, orders staying the payment
of claims and the execution of court judgments, orders ap-
portioning the payments to be made to claimants, orders
permitting partial payments to be made before final determi-
nation of the total claims, and an order setting aside a part of
the funds available for possible latent injuries not discovered
until a later time.
"f. The Commission is authorized to collect a fee from all
persons with whom an indemnification agreement is executed
under this section. This fee shall be $30 per year per thou-
sand kilowatts of thermal energy capacity for facilities li-
censed under section 103. For facilities licensed under section
104, and for construction permits under section 185, the Com-
mission is authorized to reduce the fee set forth above. The
Commission shall establish criteria in writing for determina-
tion of the fee for facilities licensed under section 104, taking
into consideration such factors as (1) the type, size, and loca-
tion of facility involved, and other factors pertaining to the
hazard, and (2) the nature and purpose of the facility. For
other licenses, the Commission shall collect such nominal fees
as it deems appropriate. No fee under this subsection shall
be less than $100 per year.
"g. In administering the provisions of this section, the
Commission shall use, to the maximum extent practicable, the
facilities and services of private insurance organizations, and
the Commission may contract to pay a reasonable compensa-
tion for such services. Any contract made under the pro-
visions of this subsection may be made without regard to the
provisions of section 3709 of the Revised Statutes, as
amended, upon a showing by the Commission that advertising
is not reasonably practicable and advance payments may be
-------
558 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
made.
"h. The agreement of indemnification may contain such
terms as the Commission deems appropriate to carry out the
purposes of this section. Such agreement shall provide that,
when the Commission makes a determination that the United
States will probably be required to make indemnity payments
under this section, the Commission shall collaborate with any
person indemnified and may approve the payment of any
claim under the agreement of indemnification, appear through
the Attorney General on behalf of the person indemnified, take
charge of such action, and settle or defend any such action.
The Commission shall have final authority on behalf of the
[p. 5]
United States to settle or approve the settlement of any such
claim on a fair and reasonable basis with due regard for the
purposes of this Act. Such settlement may include reasonable
expenses in connection with the claim incurred by the person
indemnified.
"i. After any nuclear incident which will probably require
payments by the United States under this section, the Com-
mission shall make a survey of the causes and extent of dam-
age which shall forthwith be reported to the Joint Committee,
and except as forbidden by the provisions of chapter 12 of this
Act or any other law or Executive order, all final findings shall
be made available to the public, to the parties involved and to
the courts. The Commission shall report to the Joint Com-
mittee by April 1, 1958, and every year thereafter on the op-
erations under this section.
"j. In administering the provisions of this section, the
Commission may make contracts in advance of appropriations
and incur obligations without regard to section 3679 of the
Revised Statutes, as amended.
"k. With respect to any license issued pursuant to section
53, 63, 81, 104 a., or 104 c., for the conduct of educational ac-
tivities to a person found by the Commission to be a nonprofit
educational institution, the Commission shall exempt such li-
censee from the financial protection requirement of subsection
170 a. With respect to licenses issued betiveen August 30,
1954, and August 1, 1967, for which the Commission grants
such exemption:
"(1) the Commission shall agree to indemnify and
hold harmless the licensee and other persons indemnified,
as their interests may appear, from public liability aris-
ing from nuclear incidents. The aggregate indemnity for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 559
all persons indemnified in connection with each nuclear
incident shall not exceed $500,000,000, including the rea-
sonable costs of investigating and settling claims and de-
fending suits for damage;
" (2) such contracts of indemnification shall cover pub-
lic liability arising out of or in connection ivith the
licensed activity; and shall include damage to property
of persons indemnified, except property which is located
at the site of and used in connection ivith the activity
where the nuclear incident occurs; and
"(3) such contracts of indemnification, when entered
into with a licensee having immunity from public liability
because it is a State agency, shall provide also that the
Commission shall make payments under the contract on
account of activities of the licensee in the same manner
and to the same extent as the Commission ivould be re-
quired to do if the licensee ivere not such a State agency.
Any licensee may waive an exemption to which it is entitled
under this subsection."
[p. 6]
1.11(2) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
S. REP. No. 1882, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958)
AMENDING THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS
AMENDED
JULY 22,1958.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. ANDERSON, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 4164]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered
S. 4164, to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
reports favorably thereon without amendment, and recommends
that the bill do pass.
-------
560 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION/
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION
This bill adds a new subsection k to section 170 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 concerning indemnification and limitation of
liability. The new subsection k provides that with respect to any
license for the conduct of educational activities issued pursuant to
certain sections of the act to a person found by the Commission to
be a nonprofit educational institution, the Commission shall
exempt such licensee from the financial protection requirement of
subsection 170a. Subsection 170 now provides that each such
license shall have as a condition a requirement that the licensee
have and maintain "financial protection" of such type and in such
amounts as the Commission shall require. However, numerous
State-owned educational institutions indicated that requirements
of State law granted them immunity from tort liability and for-
bade them from paying premiums for liability insurance protec-
tion, and therefore that they might not be able to obtain licenses
and participate in the program. It is the purpose of this legisla-
tion to authorize the Commission to exempt nonprofit educational
activities from the normal requirement of obtaining "financial
protection" in order to receive the benefits of section 170 of the act.
[P. 1]
1.11(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. KEP. No. 2585, 85tb Cong., 2d Sess. (1958)
ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1958, AS AMENDED
AUGUST 13,1958.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. DURHAM, from the committee of conference, submitted the
following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 13455]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 13455)
to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, having met,
after full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do
recommend to their respective Houses as follows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 561
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as
follows:
That section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954; as amended,
is amended by adding at the end thereof the following neiv sub-
section:
"k. With respect to any license issued pursuant to section 53,
63, 81, 104a., or 104c. for the conduct of educational activities to a
person found by the Commission to be a nonprofit educational
institution, the Commission shall exempt such licensee from the
financial protection requirement of subsection 170a. With respect
to licenses issued betiveen August 30, 1954, and August 1, 1967,
for which the Commission grants such exemption:
" (1) the Commission shall agree to indemnify and hold
harmless the licensee and other persons indemnified, as their
interests may appear, from public liability in excess of
$250,000 arising from nuclear incidents. The aggregate in-
demnity for all persons indemnified in connection ivith each
nuclear incident shall not exceed $500,000,000, including the
reasonable cost of investigating and settling claims and
defending suits for damage;
"(2) such contracts of indemnification shall cover public
liability arising out of or in connection ivith the licensed ac-
tivity; and shall include damage to property of persons in-
demnified, except property ivhich is located at the site of and
used in connection ivith the activity tvhere the nuclear in-
cident occurs; and
[P. 1]
"(3) such contracts of indemnification, when entered into
with a licensee having immunity from public liability because
it is a State agency, shall provide also that the Commission
shall make payments under the contract on account of activi-
ties of the licensee in the same manner and to the same extent
as the Commission ivould be required to do if the licensee
were not such a State agency.
-------
562 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
Any licensee may waive an exemption to ivhich it is entitled under
this subsection."
CARL T. DURHAM,
CHET HOLIFIELD,
MELVIN PRICE,
JAMES E. VAN ZANDT,
CRAIG HOSMER,
Managers on the part of the House.
CLINTON P. ANDERSON,
JOHN 0. PASTORE,
HENRY M. JACKSON,
BOURKE B. HlCKENLOOPER,
Managers on the part of the Senate.
[p. 2]
STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE
The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the
disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the
Senate to the bill (H.R. 13455) to amend the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended, submit the following statement in explana-
tion of the effect of the action agreed upon by the conferees and
recommended in the accompanying conference report:
The Senate struck out all of the House bill after the enacting
clause and inserted a substitute amendment. The committee of
conference has agreed to substitute for both the House bill and
the Senate amendment. The following statement explains the
differences between the House bill and the substitute agreed to in
conference.
The bill, as agreed to by the conferees, is identical to the House
version, except for certain additional words added to clause (1) of
subsection k. as indicated by the italics below:
(1) The Commission shall agree to indemnify and hold
harmless the licensee and other persons indemnified, as their
interests may appear, for public liability in excess of $250,000
arising from nuclear incidents. The aggregate indemnity for
all persons indemnified in connection with each nuclear inci-
dent shall not exceed $500,000,000 including the reasonable
cost of investigating and settling claims and defending suits
for damage;
The other provisions in the bill are identical to the bill approved
by the House.
Under the language agreed to in conference, all nonprofit educa-
tional institutions would be exempted, under the first sentence of
subsection k. in the bill, from the financial protection requirement
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 563
of subsection 170a. They would also receive the benefit of a Com-
mission indemnity agreement but only in excess of $250,000. This
language was intended to keep the Commission out of the small-
claims business and to preserve the basic pattern of Public Law
85-256 in that the Commission indemnity would begin only above
a certain minimum level.
The conferees wished to emphasize their belief that the universi-
ties can make an important contribution to our atomic energy
research and training program, and that they should be encour-
aged to do so. The conferees desired also not to discriminate in
the Federal statute between different types of universities on the
basis of State law or type of sponsorship, but to treat all nonprofit
educational institutions on the same basis. Therefore, under the
language of the conference, it will be left up to the individual
institution, on the basis of its own State law, or its own decision,
to determine the type of protection, if any, it will provide for the
first $250,000 liability prior to commencement of the Commission
indemnity. Either private insurance, suppliers' liability insur-
ance, or special State procedures may be utilized to provide the
[p. 3]
basis for meeting possible claims in this field in the same manner
as other claims against the university arising out of its usual
activities.
The $250,000 division of responsibility between the licensee and
the Commission is made applicable to those licensees having
immunity from public liability because it is a State agency by
clause (3) of the bill. Clause (3) provides that the Commission
shall make payments under the contract on account of activities
of such a licensee in the same manner and to the same extent as
the Commission would be required to do if the licensee were not
such a State agency.
After weighing carefully several possible alternatives, the con-
ferees decided that the recommended language would best reconcile
the difficult problems of State and local law presented, and would
at the same time accomplish the desired objective of encouraging
nonprofit educational institutions to participate in our atomic
energy research and training program.
CARL T. DURHAM,
CHET HOLIFIELD,
MELVIN PRICE,
JAMES E. VAN ZANDT,
CRAIG HOSMER,
Managers on the Part of the House.
[P. 4]
-------
564
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
1.1Z(4) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 104 (1958)
1.11(4) (a) July 29: Passed House, p. 15457
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
1.12(4) (b) Aug. 5: Amended and passed Senate, p. 16188
Mr. HICKENLOOPER.
I have been perfectly willing to go
along with the Government in carrying
on overriding policy, as is done in other
cases of large reactors in the program,
over and above a certain amount of
original assumption of liability by the
institution.
Unfortunately, there are institutions
in the United States today which
simply cannot be licensed to go forward
with research in their engineering and
scientific schools because they cannot
meet the prerequisite or the require-
ment, at present in the law, that they
must have insurance to cover a speci-
fic amount of liability. They are pro-
hibited by State law or constitution
from making such provision.
I do not in any way wish to bar these
very excellent, outstanding institutions
from participating in the research pro-
gram. I do not want to deny the
atomic energy program of the benefits
of their research. Therefore, while I
have some objections to certain provi-
sions in these amendments, I shall not
raise the objections now. I think the
amendments go a long way toward
solving the problem which is involved.
I think there is perfect agreement that
we can now, with these amendments,
take the bill to conference.
I think the feeling of the members of
the Joint Committee is such that we
can prepare suitable language. We
may have to compromise a little here
or there, but we can work out language
which will be reasonable and will prop-
erly solve the problem, but still permit
the institutions to go forward and
make arrangements for meeting equi-
tably the proposition of insuring the
public against possible danger from
nuclear incidents which might happen,
even though the likelihood of such in-
cidents is very, very remote.
[p. 16188]
l.li(4)(c) Aug. 14: Conference report submitted in House and agreed
to, p. 17641
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lf (4) (d) Aug. 14: Conference report submitted in Senate and agreed
to, p. 17569
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 565
1.1m AMENDMENTS TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF
1954, AS AMENDED
September 21,1959, P.L. 86-300 § 1, 73 Stat. 574
AN ACT
To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That subsection
161m. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended
by striking out "Section 103 or 104" and inserting in lieu thereof
"Section 103, 104, 53a. (4), or 63a. (4)."
SEC. 2. Section 163 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended by inserting after the words "from receiving
compensation" the following words "from a source other than a
nonprofit educational institution."
Approved September 21, 1959.
[p. 574]
l.lm(l) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
S. REP. No. 871, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959)
AMENDMENTS TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954,
AS AMENDED
SEPTEMBER 1 (legislative day, AUGUST 31), 1959.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. ANDERSON, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 2569]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered
S. 2569, an original committee bill to amend the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, report favorably thereon with an amend-
ment, and recommend that the bill, as amended, do pass.
The amendment to the bill adopted by the Joint Committee is as
follows:
-------
566 LEGAL COMPILATION-—KADIATION
On page 1, line 3, strike out all after the word "That", and strike
out all of lines 4 through 11; and on page 2, strike out all of lines 1
through 6, and on line 7, strike out the words "SEC. 2."; and on
page 2, line 11, renumber "SEC. 3." as "SEC. 2.".
EXPLANATION OF COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
The committee amendment deletes section 1 of the bill which
would have amended section 91 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended, by adding a new subsection d. Former section 2 of
the bill thus becomes the first section and section 3 is renumbered
as section 2.
SUMMARY OP BILL
This bill, as reported out by the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy, amends sections 161 and 163 of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended.
Section 1 of the bill amends subsection 161m. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to authorize the Commission to
enter into agreements for the performance of certain services by
the Commission, including the reprocessing of irradiated fuel ele-
ments with material licensees (reactor manufacturers and fuel
suppliers), as well as facility licensees (reactor operators or utili-
ties), as presently authorized by the act.
[p. i]
Section 2 of the bill amends section 163 of the act to provide, in
substance, that the members of the General Advisory Committee
and other AEC advisory committees will not be subject to certain
conflict-of-interest statutes solely because of compensation re-
ceived from nonprofit educational institutions.
COMMENTS BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE
The Joint Committee, after carefully considering several alter-
natives to the language to section 1 of the bill, concluded that more
consideration is needed by the Atomic Energy Commission and the
Department of Defense on the subject of respective responsibilities
for safety of nuclear materials, atomic weapons, and military
reactors under the control of the Department of Defense. The
committee has therefore requested the AEC and the Department
of Defense to review this subject thoroughly and to present re-
ports to the Joint Committee for further consideration during the
next session of the Congress.
Each year the Joint Committee reviews the provisions of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, in order to make sure
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 567
that the act is up to date and capable of dealing with new problems
emerging in the developing atomic energy field. The two amend-
ments incorporated into this bill are those which the committee
recommends that the Congress consider and enact this session.
Certain other proposed amendments to the act which are now
pending before the Joint Committee are considered less urgent
and will be considered further during the next session of the
Congress.
Certain amendments to chapter 13 of the Atomic Energy Act
pertaining to patents and inventions were proposed by the AEC
this year. The Joint Committee held hearings on this subject in
April, 1959. Subsequently, in Public Law 86-50, the committee
incorporated the proposed amendment to section 153 of the act, to
extend the so-called "compulsory licensing" section of the act for
another 5 years, because of the proximity of the expiration date of
September 1, 1959. The committee has been informed that the
Commission is still reviewing atomic energy patent matters, par-
ticularly in the international field, and the committee will therefore
review this subject again next year.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1 of the bill amends subsection 161m. by making it appli-
cable to licensees under subsections 53a. (4) and 63a. (4) as well
as sections 103 and 104. As indicated in the AEC statement in
appendix I, this amendment would facilitate development of the
atomic energy industry in some cases, arid might result in lower
charges to the industry in certain instances.
Section 2 of the bill, as amended, amends section 163 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, so as to enable certain
members of AEC advisory committees who might receive compen-
sation from nonprofit educational institutions to serve without
regard to certain of the conflict-of-interest statutes if the conflict
arises out of compensation received from such an institution.
[p. 2]
It is intended that the Commission shall exercise judgment in
the selection of persons for its advisory committees, and would not,
for example, select to the General Advisory Committee persons
having direct responsibility for phases of the program, such as
directors of national laboratories.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In accordance with subsection 4 of rule XXIX of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law recommended by the
-------
568 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
bill accompanying this report are shown as follows (deleted mat-
ter is shown in black brackets, and new matter is printed in
italic):
PUBLIC LAW 83-703
THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED
SEC. 161. GENERAL PROVISIONS.—In the performance of its
functions the Commission is authorized to * * *
"m. enter into agreements with persons licensed under [section
103 or 104] Section 103,104, 53a. (4), or 63a. (4) for such periods
of time as the Commission may deem necessary or desirable (1)
to provide for the processing, fabricating, separating, or refining
in facilities owned by the Commission of source, byproduct, or
other material or special nuclear material owned by or made avail-
able to such licensees and which is utilized or produced in the con-
duct of the licensed activity, and (2) to sell, lease, or otherwise
make available to such licensees such quantities of source or
byproduct material, and other material not defined as special
nuclear material pursuant to this Act, as may be necessary for the
conduct of the licensed activity: Provided, however, That any
such agreement may be canceled by the licensee at any time upon
payment of such reasonable cancellation charges as may be agreed
upon by the licensee and the Commission: And provided further,
That the Commission shall establish prices to be paid by licensees
for material or services to be furnished by the Commission pur-
suant to this subsection, which prices shall be established on such
a nondiscriminatory basis as, in the opinion of the Commission,
will provide reasonable compensation to the Government for such
material or services and will not discourage the development of
sources of supply independent of the Commission."
SEC. 163. ADVISORY COMMITTEES.—The members of the Gen-
eral Advisory Committee established pursuant to section 26 and
the members of advisory boards established pursuant to section
161a. may serve as such without regard to the provisions of sec-
tions 281, 283, or 284 of Title 18 of the United States Code, except
insofar as such sections may prohibit any such member from
receiving compensation from a source other than a nonprofit edu-
cational institution in respect of any particular matter which
directly involves the Commission or in which the Commission is
directly interested."
[p. 3]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 569
APPENDIX I
EXCERPT FROM STATEMENT OF AEC CHAIRMAN McCoNE BEFORE
JOINT COMMITTEE DURING HEARING ON AUGUST 26, 1959
Section 2 (sec. 1 in amended bill)
This section of the proposed bill is directed toward another prob-
lem which we would like to have solved by this session of Congress.
At present we are authorized to contract only with licensed
reactor owners to perform services for them, such as chemical
processing of their irradiated fuels. These services are not avail-
able from commercial suppliers.
This limited authority is interfering with the pattern of doing
business preferred by reactor operators. For example, one large
utility has told us that they prefer to contract with a fuel supplier
who would not only furnish fuel ready to insert into their reactor
but who would also cart away the irradiated fuel, and arrange for
having it processed. The utility cannot do this at present because
the authority we now have in section 161m. of the act disenables
the Commission from contracting with such a fuel supplier to per-
form the necessary reprocessing. It would be a convenience to
both the utility and to the Commission if we could do business with
such a fuel supplier. Therefore, we ask that section 161m. be
amended to give us the long-term authority to make such contracts.
Another example of where a change in this section of the law
would help is in the area of handling fuel for research reactors.
These reactors use such a small amount of fuel that they run up
against our minimum charge for processing. The result is a rela-
tively high charge. This charge could be lowered for an individual
reactor operator if he could turn his irradiated fuel over to a fuel
company which would collect fuel from several such small reactors
and offer all of it to us to reprocess as a single batch. The result
could be a substantially lower charge to each reactor operator and
thus a direct benefit to research.
Several companies are exploring the field and at least one fuel
element manufacturer is eager to provide a complete fuel service.
Section 2 of the bill contains language which will accomplish
these purposes and I urge passage of this amendment at this
session of Congress.
Section 3 (sec. 2 of amended bill)
Section 3 of S. 2569 and H.R. 8754 would amend 163 of the
Atomic Energy Act so as to enable GAC members who are from
the university world to serve without regard to certain of the con-
flict of interests statutes. The bill also covers members of other
-------
570 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
advisory boards established by the Commission under section
161 (a) of the act.
Members of the GAG are presently subject to technical conflict
of interest problems under a possible construction of the statutes
(18 U.S.C. 281, 283, and 284) from which section 163 provides a
[P. 4]
partial exemption. Most troublesome of the statutes is 18 U.S.C.
281 which, as modified by section 163, prohibits an AEG employee
from receiving compensation for any services rendered in relation
to any matter which is before the agency and in which the AEG
is directly involved or interested. The crime is the receipt of
compensation, regardless of the type of services rendered.
The Commission's interest in a broadened exemption is occa-
sioned not so much by the fear of any actual prosecution of a GAG
member for these technical conflicts than by a desire to clarify
what is undoubtedly a hazy area. We want to be able to assure
men from private life that they are violating neither the letter nor
the spirit of these laws.
In reference to the specific proposal contained in section 3 of
your bill, we feel that it is extremely salutary and we support it
fully. We have no doubt that the receipt of compensation from
nonprofit educational institutions, whose basic motivation is the
public interest, is not incompatible with service on the General
Advisory Committee and other advisory boards.
[p. 5]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 571
l.lm(2) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
H.R. REP. No. 1124, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959)
AMENDMENTS TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954,
AS AMENDED
SEPTEMBER 2,1959.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. DURHAM, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 8754]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered
H.R. 8754, an original committee bill to amend the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, report favorably thereon with an
amendment, and recommend that the bill, as amended, do pass.
The amendment to the bill adopted by the Joint Committee is as
follows:
On page 1, line 3, strike out all after the word "That", and strike
out all of lines 4 through 11; and on page 2, strike out all of lines 1
through 6, and on line 7, strike out the words "SEC. 2."; and on
page 2, line 11, renumber "SEC. 3." as "SEC. 2."
EXPLANATION OF COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
The committee amendment deletes section 1 of the bill which
would have amended section 91 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended, by adding a new subsection d. Former section 2 of
the bill thus becomes the first section and section 3 is reunmbered
as section 2.
SUMMARY OF BILL
This bill, as reported out by the Joint Committee on Atomic En-
ergy, amends sections 161 and 163 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended.
Section 1 of the bill amends subsection 161m. of the Atomic En-
ergy Act of 1954, as amended, to authorize the Commission to
enter into agreements for the performance of certain services by
the Commission, including the reprocessing of irradiated fuel el-
ements with material licensees (reactor manufacturers and fuel
-------
572 LEGAL COMPILATION—EADIATION
suppliers), as well as facility licensees (reactor manufacturers and
fuel suppliers), as well as facility licensees (reactor operators or
utilities), as presently authorized by the act.
[p. 1]
Section 2 of the bill amends section 163 of the act to provide, in
substance, that the members of the General Advisory Committee
and other AEC advisory committees will not be subject to certain
conflict-of-interest statutes solely because of compensation re-
ceived from nonprofit educational institutions.
COMMENTS BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE
The Joint Committee, after carefully considering several alter-
natives to the language to section 1 of the bill, concluded that more
consideration is needed by the Atomic Energy Commission and the
Department of Defense on the subject of respective responsibil-
ities for safety of nuclear materials, atomic weapons, and military
reactors under the control of the Department of Defense. The
committee has therefore requested the AEC and the Department
of Defense to review this subject thoroughly and to present re-
ports to the Joint Committee for further consideration during the
next session of the Congress.
Each year the Joint Committee reviews the provisions of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, in order to make sure
that the act is up to date and capable of dealing with new prob-
lems emerging in the developing atomic energy field. The two
amendments incorporated into this bill are those which the com-
mittee recommends that the Congress consider and enact this
session. Certain other proposed amendments to the act which are
now pending before the Joint Committee are considered less
urgent and will be considered further during the next session of
the Congress.
Certain amendments to chapter 13 of the Atomic Energy Act
pertaining to patents and inventions were proposed by the AEC
this year. The Joint Committee held hearings on this subject in
April, 1959. Subsequently, in Public Law 86-50, the committee
incorporated the proposed amendment to section 153 of the act, to
extend the so-called "compulsory licensing" section of the act for
another 5 years, because of the proximity of the expiration date of
September 1, 1959. The committee has been informed that the
Commission is still reviewing atomic energy patent matters, par-
ticularly in the international field, and the committee will there-
fore review this subject again next year.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 573
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1 of the bill amends subsection 161 m. by making it ap-
plicable to licensees under subsections 53 a. (4) and 63 a. (4) as
well as sections 103 and 104. As indicated in the AEC statement
in appendix I, this amendment would facilitate development of the
atomic energy industry in some cases, and might result in lower
charges to the industry in certain instances.
Section 2 of the bill, as amended, amends section 163 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, so as to enable certain
members of AEC advisory committees who might receive com-
pensation from non-profit educational institutions to serve without
regard to certain of the conflict-of-interest statutes if the conflict
arises out of compensation received from such an institution.
[P. 2]
It is intended that the Commission shall exercise judgment in
the selection of persons for its advisory committees, and would not,
for example, select to the General Advisory Committee persons
having direct responsibility for phases of the program, such as
directors of national laboratories.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In accordance with clause (3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law recommended
by the bill accompanying this report are shown as follows (de-
leted matter is shown in black brackets, and new matter is printed
in italic) :
PUBLIC LAW 83-703
THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED
SEC. 161. GENERAL PROVISIONS.—In the performance of its
functions the Commission is authorized to * * *
"m. enter into agreements with persons licensed under [section
103 or 104] Section 103, 104, 53a.(4), or 63a. (4) for such periods
of time as the Commission may deem necessary or desirable (1)
to provide for the processing, fabricating, separating, or refining
in facilities owned by the Commission of source, byproduct, or
other material or special nuclear material owned by or made avail-
able to such licensees and which is utilized or produced in the con-
duct of the licensed activity, and (2) to sell, lease, or otherwise
make available to such licensees such quantities of source or by-
product material, and other material not defined as special nuclear
material pursuant to this Act, as may be necessary for the conduct
of the licensed activity: Provided, however, That any such agree-
-------
574 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
ment may be canceled by the licensee at any time upon payment of
such reasonable cancellation charges as may be agreed upon by the
licensee and the Commission: And provided further, That the
Commission shall establish prices to be paid by licensees for mate-
rial or services to be furnished by the Commission pursuant to this
subsection, which prices shall be established on such a nondiscrim-
inatory basis as, in the opinion of the Commission, will provide rea-
sonable compensation to the Government for such material or
services and will not discourage the development of sources of
supply independent of the Commission."
*******
"SEC. 163. ADVISORY COMMITTEES.—The members of the Gen-
eral Advisory Committee established pursuant to section 26 and
the members of advisory boards established pursuant to section
161 a. may serve as such without regard to the provisions of sec-
tions 281, 283, or 284 of Title 18 of the United States Code, except
insofar as such sections may prohibit any such member from re-
ceiving compensation from a source other than a nonprofit ed-
ucational institution in respect of any particular matter which
directly involves the Commission or in which the Commission is
directly interested."
[p. 3]
l.lm(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 105 (1959)
l.lm(3) (a) Sept. 9: Passed Senate, p. 18732
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lm(3)(b) Sept. 11: Passed House, p. 19169
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.ln AMENDMENTS TO ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954,
September 23,1959, P.L. 86-373, § 1, 73 Stat. 688
To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, with respect to
cooperation with States.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the follow-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 575
ing section be added to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended:
"SEC. 274. COOPERATION WITH STATES.—
"a. It is the purpose of this section—
" (1) to recognize the interests of the States in the peaceful
uses of atomic energy, and to clarify the respective responsi-
bilities under this Act of the States and the Commission with
respect to the regulation of byproduct, source, and special
nuclear materials;
"(2) to recognize the need, and establish programs for, co-
operation between the States and the Commission with re-
spect to control of radiation hazards associated with use of
such materials;
" (3) to promote an orderly regulatory pattern between the
Commission and State governments with respect to nuclear
development and use and regulation of byproduct, source, and
special nuclear materials;
"(4) to establish procedures and criteria for discontin-
uance of certain of the Commission's regulatory responsibil-
ities with respect to byproduct, source, and special nuclear
materials, and the assumption thereof by the States;
[p. 688]
"(5) to provide for coordination of the development of
radiation standards for the guidance of Federal agencies and
cooperation with the States; and
"(6) to recognize that, as the States improve their cap-
abilities to regulate effectively such materials, additional leg-
islation may be desirable.
"b. Except as provided in subsection c., the Commission is
authorized to enter into agreements with the Governor of any
State providing for discontinuance of the regulatory authority of
the Commission under chapters 6, 7, and 8, and section 161 of this
Act, with respect to any one or more of the following materials
within the State—
"(1) byproduct materials;
"(2) source materials;
"(3) special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient
to form a critical mass.
During the duration of such an agreement it is recognized that the
State shall have authority to regulate the materials covered by the
agreement for the protection of the public health and safety from
radiation hazards.
"c. No agreement entered into pursuant to subsection b. shall
provide for discontinuance of any authority and the Commission
-------
576 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
shall retain authority and responsibility with respect to regula-
tion of—
"(1) the construction and operation of any production or
utilization facility;
"(2) the export from or import into the United States of
byproduct, source, or special nuclear material, or of any pro-
duction or utilization facility;
"(3) the disposal into the ocean or sea of byproduct,
source, or special nuclear waste materials as denned in reg-
ulations or orders of the Commission;
"(4) the disposal of such other byproduct, source, or spe-
cial nuclear material as the Commission determines by reg-
ulation or order should, because of the hazards or potential
hazards thereof, not be so disposed of without a license from
the Commission.
Notwithstanding any agreement between the Commission and any
State pursuant to subsection b., the Commission is authorized by
rule, regulation, or order to require that the manufacturer, pro-
cessor, or producer of any equipment, device, commodity, or other
product containing source, byproduct, or special nuclear material
shall not transfer possession or control of such product except
pursuant to a license issued by the Commission.
"d. The Commission shall enter into an agreement under subsec-
tion b. of this section with any State if—
" (1) The Governor of that State certifies that the State has
a program for the control of radiation hazards adequate to
protect the public health and safety with respect to the ma-
terials within the State covered by the proposed agreement,
and that the State desires to assume regulatory responsibility
for such materials; and
"(2) the Commission finds that the State program is com-
patible with the Commission's program for the regulation of
such materials, and that the State program is adequate to pro-
tect the public health and safety with respect to the materials
covered by the proposed agreement.
"e. (1) Before any agreement under subsection b. is signed by
the Commission, the terms of the proposed agreement and of pro-
posed exemptions pursuant to subsection f. shall be published once
[p. 689]
each week for four consecutive weeks in the Federal Register; and
such opportunity for comment by interested persons on the pro-
posed agreement and exemptions shall be allowed as the Commis-
sion determines by regulation or order to be appropriate.
"(2) Each proposed agreement shall include the proposed ef-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 577
fective date of such proposed agreement or exemptions. The
agreement and exemptions shall be published in the Federal Reg-
ister within thirty days after signature by the Commission and
the Governor.
"f. The Commission is authorized and directed, by regulation or
order, to grant such exemptions from the licensing requirements
contained in chapters 6, 7, and 8, and from its regulations ap-
plicable to licensees as the Commission finds necessary or approp-
riate to carry out any agreement entered into pursuant to
subsection b. of this section.
"g. The Commission is authorized and directed to cooperate
with the States in the formulation of standards for protection
against hazards of radiation to assure that State and Commission
programs for protection against hazards of radiation will be co-
ordinated and compatible.
"h. There is hereby established a Federal Radiation Council, con-
sisting of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the
Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, or
their designees, and such other members as shall be appointed by
the President. The Council shall consult qualified scientists and
experts in radiation matters, including the President of the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences, the Chairman of the National Com-
mittee on Radiation Protection and Measurement, and qualified
experts in the field of biology and medicine and in the field of
health physics. The Special Assistant to the President for Sci-
ence and Technology, or his designee, is authorized to attend meet-
ings, participate in the deliberations of, and to advise the Council.
The Chairman of the Council shall be designated by the President,
from time to time, from among the members of the Council. The
Council shall advise the President with respect to radiation mat-
ters, directly or indirectly affecting health, including guidance for
all Federal agencies in the formulation of radiation standards and
in the establishment and execution of programs of cooperation
with States. The Council shall also perform such other functions
as the President may assign to it by Executive order.
"i. The Commission in carrying out its licensing and regulatory
responsibilities under this Act is authorized to enter into agree-
ments with any State, or group of States, to perform inspections
or other functions on a cooperative basis as the Commission deems
appropriate. The Commission is also authorized to provide train-
ing, with or without charge, to employees of, and such other as-
sistance to, any State or political subdivision thereof or group of
States as the Commission deems appropriate. Any such provision
-------
578 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
or assistance by the Commission shall take into account the ad-
ditional expenses that may be incurred by a State as a conse-
quence of the State's entering into an agreement with the
Commission pursuant to subsection b.
"j. The Commission, upon its own initiative after reasonable
notice and opportunity for hearing to the State with which an
agreement under subsection b. has become effective, or upon re-
quest of the Governor of such State, may terminate or suspend
its agreement with the State and reassert the licensing and reg-
ulatory authority vested in it under this Act, if the Commission
finds that such termination or suspension is required to protect the
public health and safety.
[p. 690]
"k. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the au-
thority of any State or local agency to regulate activities for pur-
poses other than protection against radiation hazards.
"1. With respect to each application for Commission license
authorizing an activity as to which the Commission's authority is
continued purusant to subsection c., the Commission shall give
prompt notice to the State or States in which the activity will be
conducted of the filing of the license application; and shall afford
reasonable opportunity for State representatives to offer evidence,
interrogate witnesses, and advise the Commission as to the ap-
plication, without requiring such representatives to take a position
for or against the granting of the application.
"m. No agreement entered into under subsection b., and no
exemption granted pursuant to subsection f., shall affect the au-
thority of the Commission under subsection 161 b. or i. to issue
rules, regulations, or orders to protect the common defense and
security, to protect restricted data or to guard against the loss or
diversion of special nuclear material. For purposes of subsection
161i., activities covered by exemptions granted pursuant to sub-
section f. shall be deemed to constitute activities authorized pursu-
ant to this Act; and special nuclear material acquired by any
person pursuant to such an exemption shall be deemed to have
been acquired pursuant to section 53.
"n. As used in this section, the term 'State' means any State,
Territory, or possession of the United States, the Canal Zone,
Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia."
SEC. 2. Section 108 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is
amended by deleting the phrase "distributed under the provisions
of subsection 53a.," from the second sentence.
Approved September 23, 1959.
[P. 691]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 579
l.ln(l) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
S. REP. No. 870, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959)
AMENDMENTS TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954,
AS AMENDED, WITH RESPECT TO COOPERATION
WITH STATES
SEPTEMBER 1 (legislative day, AUGUST 31), 1959.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. ANDERSON, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 2568]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered S.
2568, an original committee bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended, with respect to cooperation with States, re-
port favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the
bill as amended do pass.
The amendments to the bill adopted by the Joint Committee are
as follows:
1. On page 3, line 6, strike out the words "and license".
2. On page 3, line 17, after the word "production", strike out the
word "of" and insert in lieu thereof the word "or".
3. On page 5, line 1, strike out the word "three" and insert in
lieu thereof the word "four".
4. On page 5, strike out all of lines 6 through 17, and on line 18
renumber clause (3) as clause (2).
5. On page 6, line 10, strike out all after "h.", strike out all of
lines 11 through 20, and in line 21, strike out the words "radiation
hazards and standards" and the period, and insert in lieu thereof
the following words:
There is hereby established a Federal Radiation Coun-
cil, consisting of the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare, the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Com-
merce, the Secretary of Labor, or their designees, and
such other members as shall be appointed by the Pres-
ident. The Council shall consult qualified scientists and
experts in radiation matters, including the President of
the National Academy of Sciences, the Chairman of the
[p. 1]
-------
580 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
National Committee on Radiation Protection and Meas-
urement, and qualified experts in the field of biology and
medicine and in the field of health physics.
6. On page 8, line 6, strike out all after "k.", strike out all of
lines 7 through 13, and in line 14 strike out the word "regulations"
and the period.
EXPLANATION OF COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
The amendments adopted by the committee are all minor or
technical in nature, and are not intended to change the basic pur-
poses and objectives of the bill as proposed by the Atomic Energy
Commission.
Amendment No. 1, in subsection b., strikes out the words "and
license" after the word "regulate". The words "and license" were
not considered necessary because, as used elsewhere in the bill, the
word "regulate" includes the licensing function. Thus, for reasons
of consistency, the words "and license" in this subsection were de-
leted as being unnecessary.
Amendment No. 2 corrects a typographical error in changing the
word "of" to the word "or".
Amendment No. 3, in clause (1) of subsection e., requires that
the terms of a proposed agreement and proposed exemptions shall
be published in the Federal .Register each week for 4 consecutive
weeks, rather than 3, in order that all interested persons, including
State officials and the general public, may be fully informed and
have opportunity to comment to the Commission.
Amendment No. 4 deleted clause (2) of subsection e., which
would have provided a 45-day review period by the Joint Commit-
tee on Atomic Energy of any proposed agreement or amendment.
The Commission has the responsibility, under section 202 of the
Atomic Energy Act, of keeping the Joint Committee "fully and
currently informed." Under section 202, it is intended that the
Commission shall inform the committee of all pending agreements
with individual States, including the proposed certifications and
findings under subsection d. as to the adequacy of State programs,
as well as operations under agreements after they may become ef-
fective. The Joint Committee does not consider it necessary to
provide for formal review of each individual proposed agreement
or amendment, but does believe it important that the committee
be kept fully informed by the Commission of the operations under
the provisions of this bill.
Amendment No. 5 in subsection h. amends the composition of
the Federal Radiation Council in the bill, as introduced, in certain
respects. First, it substitutes the Secretary of Health, Education,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 581
and Welfare for the Surgeon General as a member of the Coun-
cil. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare includes
both the Public Health Service, under the Surgeon General, and
the Federal Food and Drug Administration, which also has an
interest in radiation matters. It is intended that the Secretary
will receive advice from both of these agencies. The Secretary
may, of course, if he so desires, designate the Surgeon General to
serve on the Council as his designee.
As amended, subsection h. names five members of the Council;
namely, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the
Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Labor,
or their designees, and such other members as shall be appointed
[p. 2]
by the President. It provides that the Council shall consult qual-
ified scientists and experts in radiation matters, including the
President of the National Academy of Sciences, the Chairman of
the National Committee on Radiation Protection and Measure-
ment, and qualified experts in the field of biology and medicine
and in the field of health physics. In this manner, persons named
in the statute are all appointees of the President, and members of
the President's official family, and the President may appoint ad-
ditional members, including representatives of the public, and
State or local agencies. The bill emphasizes that the Council shall
consult qualified scientists and obtain their advice before advising
the President on radiation matters.
The Joint Committee was informed that subsection h., as
amended, would meet with no objections by the Director of the
Bureau of the Budget or the Secretary of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare.
Amendment No. 6 deletes the first sentence of subsection k. as
unnecessary. As explained in more detail subsequently in this
report, the Commission now regulates and licenses the materials
covered by the Atomic Energy Act (byproduct, source, and special
nuclear materials) to protect against radiation hazards. With or
without this sentence, in order for a State to so regulate or license
such materials, it must first establish an adequate program for this
purpose and enter into an agreement with the Commission.
SUMMARY OF BILL
This bill, including the minor amendments approved by the Joint
Committee, contains the principal provisions of its predecessor, S.
1987, as proposed by the Atomic Energy Commission, and intro-
-------
582 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
duced by Senator Anderson (by request) on May 19, 1959. The
objectives of the predecessor bill were explained by the letter dated
May 13, 1959, to Chairman Anderson from A. R. Luedecke, Gen-
eral Manager of the AEC, as follows:
Essentially, the objectives of this proposed bill are to
provide procedures and criteria whereby the Commission
may "turn over" to individual States, as they become
ready, certain defined areas of regulatory jurisdiction.
Certain areas, as to which interstate, national, or interna-
tional considerations may be paramount, would be ex-
cluded. In addition, certain areas would be excluded
because the technical safety considerations are of such
complexity that it is not likely that any State would be
prepared to deal with them during the foreseeable future.
To assist the States to prepare themselves for assuming
independent regulatory jurisdiction, the new bill (like
the 1957 bill) specifically authorizes the Commission to
provide training and other services to State officials and
employees and to enter into agreements with the States
under which the latter may" perform inspections and
other functions cooperatively with the Commission.
The bill includes criteria which would need to be met
before the Commission could turn over any of its respon-
sibilities to a State; and provisions pursuant to which the
Commission might reassert its authority. The bill pro-
vides that the Commission may, upon request of the Gov-
ernor or upon its own initiative, terminate or suspend its
[P. 3]
agreement with the State and reassert its regulatory
authority if the Commission finds that such termination
or suspension is required to protect public health and
safety. Opportunity for hearing is provided.
The bill also contains specific provisions designed to
remove doubt as to the relative responsibilities of the
Commission and the States * * *.
In summary, the principal provisions of the bill authorize the
Commission to withdraw its responsibility for regulation of certain
materials—principally radioisotopes—but not over more hazard-
ous activities such as the licensing and regulation of reactors. The
bill requires compatibility of Federal and State radiation stand-
ards, and authorizes programs to assist the States to assume in-
dependent regulatory jurisdiction.
This bill, as amended by the Joint Committee, contains all the
principal provisions, and is intended to accomplish the objectives
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 583
of the bill proposed by the Commission. In addition, it contains
certain revisions made by the Joint Committee as follows:
First, the bill has been redrafted by the Joint Committee to
make it clear that it does not attempt to regulate materials which
the AEC does not now regulate under the Atomic Energy Act of
1954. Such other sources such as X-ray machines and radium
also present substantial radiation hazards, but have been for many
years the responsibility of the States, the Public Health Service, or
other agencies.
Secondly, as a drafting change, subsection b. in the bill as orig-
inally proposed by AEC (S. 1987) contained two clauses—(1) and
(2). Because of their substantive importance, these clauses were
redrafted as subsections b. and c., and certain other subsections
renumbered accordingly.
Thirdly, subsection h., added by this bill, establishes a Federal
Radiation Council to advise the President on radiation matters,
similar to the Council recently established by Executive order. It
does modify the basic functions of the Council, but increases its
membership from four to five members, including the Secretary of
Labor, and provides that the Council shall consult qualified sci-
entists and experts in radiation matters.
Fourth, a sentence was added by the Joint Committee in new
subsection i., pertaining to training and assistance, that in pro-
viding assistance to the States, the Commission shall take into ac-
count the additional expenses that may be incurred by the State as
a consequence of the State's entering into an agreement with the
Commission.
In summary, this bill provides the basic authorization requested
by the Commission, and also incorporates certain additional fea-
tures considered desirable by the committee, after hearings and
careful consideration of all the provisions of the bill.
BACKGROUND
The need for an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
with respect to Federal-State cooperation, and to permit increased
participation by the States, has been a subject of concern to the
members of the Joint Committee since passage of that act in 1954.
In 1956 and 1957, bills were introduced by Senator Anderson and
[p. 4]
Congressman Durham, and the AEC also •submitted to the Joint
Committee in 1957 a proposed bill to amend the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 with respect to Federal-State cooperation. S. 4298,
84th Congress, 2d session, introduced by Senator Anderson in
1956, would have authorized the Commission to enter into com-
-------
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
pacts or agreements "delineating the separate responsibilities" of
the AEG and the States with respect to the health and safety
aspects of activities licensed under the act, and to transfer to
States such regulatory authority as it finds them competent to
assume. H.R. 8676, 84th Congress, 2d session, introduced by
Congressman Durham in 1956, would have directed the AEG to
transfer jurisdiction over health and safety in areas in which a
Governor certifies that his State has a competent agency, within 6
months after receiving such certification.
The AEC-proposed bill, forwarded to the Joint Committee in
late June 1957, would have authorized concurrent radiation safety
standards to be enforced by the States "not in conflict" with those
of the AEG. It provided that the States might adopt, inspect
against, and enforce radiation standards for the protection of
health and safety in areas regulated by AEG. Thus, the bill pro-
posed by the AEG in 1957 would have permitted dual regulation
by both Federal and State Governments of byproduct, source, and
special nuclear materials for protection against radiation hazards.
At the conclusion of the 85th Congress, the chairman and the
vice chairman of the Joint Committee instructed the staff to make
a study of existing laws and regulations, at the Federal, State, and
local level in the atomic energy field in preparation for hearings
by the Joint Committee on Federal-State Cooperation in the spring
of 1959. Accordingly, the Joint Committee staff, with the assist-
ance of an informal advisory panel, studied the matter thoroughly
and collected materials published in March 1959 as a 520-page
Joint Committee print entitled "Selected Materials on Federal-
State Cooperation in the Atomic Energy Field." The committee
print included special reports requested by Senator Anderson from
various Federal agencies, summaries of the activities of State and
local governments, and certain nongovernmental organizations. It
also reprinted excerpts from articles and materials on Federal-
State relationships in the atomic energy field, including a report
prepared by the Council of State Governments entitled "Inter-
governmental Relationships in the Fields Other Than Atomic
Energy."
As background for the hearings on Federal-State cooperation,
the Joint Committee held two prior sets of hearings as follows:
1. From January 28 to February 3, 1959, the Special Subcom-
mittee on Radiation of the Joint Committee held public hearings
on industrial radioactive waste disposal. Representatives from
both Federal and State agencies presented statements on their
'activities in regulating or handling radioactive waste materials.
2. From March 10 to 18, 1959, the Subcommittee on Research
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 585
and Development held public hearings on employee radiation haz-
ards and workmen's compensation. Witnesses from Federal and
State agencies, as well as nongovernmental organizations, testified
during these hearings.
In order to inform all State Governors of the plans of the Joint
Committee and the hearings which led to this bill, Chairman
Anderson and Vice Chairman Durham, and three other ranking
[p. 5]
members of the committee (Senator Hickenlooper, Congressman
Van Zandt, and Congressman Holifield as chairman of the Sub-
committee on Legislation) sent a letter on February 11, 1959, to
each Governor of the then 49 States. Subsequently, copies of the
Joint Committee print on "Selected Materials on Federal-State
Cooperation in the Atomic Energy Field" and "Selected Materials
on Employee Radiation Hazards and Workmen's Compensation"
were also sent to each Governor, as well as to all other persons on
the Joint Committee mailing list, and other interested persons.
At the request of the Joint Committee, the Commission, on
March 5, 1959, forwarded to the Joint Committee a proposed bill
for the purposes of inclusion in the Joint Committee print, and the
Joint Committee scheduled hearings to be held in May 1959. On
May 13, 1959, the Commission formally transmitted its proposal to
amend the Atomic Energy Act with respect to cooperation with
States, which was identical to the March 5 version, except for
minor revisions. This bill was introduced (by request) by Senator
Anderson as S. 1987 and by Congressman Durham as H.R. 7214.
From May 19 to 22, 1959, the Joint Committee held hearings, as
summarized below in the next session of this report. Thereafter,
it was announced that the Bureau of the Budget was coordinating
a study within the executive branch concerning allocation of radia-
tion control responsibilities among Federal agencies and transfer
of functions to States, and the committee deemed it advisable to
take no further action on the bills until the results of such study
were announced. On August 14, the White House issued a press
release announcing establishment of a Federal Radiation Council,
and stating, in addition, as follows:
In addition, the President approved a series of recommen-
dations to be carried out upon enactment of proposed legisla-
tion endorsed by the administration (S. 1987 and H.R. 7214)
under which certain regulatory responsibilities of the
Atomic Energy Commission will be transferred to the States
by agreement with the Commission as the States equip
themselves to assume them. The recommendations were
that—
-------
586 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
(a) The Atomic Energy Commission have the principal
Federal responsibility for preparing the States for the
proposed transfer of certain of its regulatory responsibilities.
(b) The training programs necessary for such transfer be
financed and planned by the Commission, and in order to make
maximum use of existing facilities and competence, such pro-
grams be conducted under cooperative arrangements between
the Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare.
(c) At the termination of this special training program
any training of State personnel be conducted within the con-
tinuing programs of the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare and other Federal agencies.
(d) The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
continue as the Federal focal point for guidance and assist-
ance to the States with respect to contamination by and bio-
logical effects from radiation sources not now under control
of the Commission.
[p. 6]
After announcement of the August 14, 1959, Executive order
which established the Federal Radiation Council, and reaffirmed
the administration's support of S. 1987 and H.R. 7214, Senator
Anderson introduced on August 19, 1959, this bill as S. 2568, to
incorporate the principal provisions of S. 1987, plus certain other
provisions, including recognition of the Federal Radiation Council.
On the next day, August 20, 1959, Congressman Durham intro-
duced an identical bill as H.R. 8755. On August 26, 1959, the com-
mittee received comments from the AEC on S. 2568 and H.R. 8755.
The committee met to consider the bills in executive meetings on
August 26 and 31, 1959, and voted to report the bills out, with
certain minor amendments as summarized in this report.
HEARINGS
From May 19 to 22, 1959, the Joint Committee held public hear-
ings on the bills proposed by AEC, and on the subject of Federal-
State cooperation in the atomic energy field. Testimony was
received from the following persons and organizations:
May 19,1959
Dr. G. Hoyt Whipple, University of Michigan
Dr. Lauriston Taylor, chairman, National Committee on Radia-
tion Protection and Measurement
Commissioner John S. Graham, U.S. Atomic Energy Commis-
sion
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 587
Dr. Charles H. Dunham, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
Dr. Joseph Lieberman, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
Mr. Oscar S. Smith, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
Mr. Curtis A. Nelson, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
Mr. Harold Price, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
Dr. Clifford Beck, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
Dr. David Price, U.S. Public Health Service
Dr. Francis J. Weber, U.S. Public Health Service
May 20,1959
Gov. Robert E. Smylie of Idaho
Mr. Lee Hydeman, University of Michigan Law School
Dr. W. L. Wilson, State of Texas
Dr. Morris Kleinfeld, State of New York
Mr. P. W. Jacoe, State of Colorado
Dr. Maurice B. Visscher, State of Minnesota
Mr. Harold Sandbank, American Municipal Association
May 21,1959
Commissioner John S. Graham, U.S. Atomic Energy Commis-
sion
Mr. Robert Lowenstein, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
Dr. John D. Porterfield, U.S. Public Health Service
Dr. Francis J. Weber, U.S. Public Health Service
Mr. Jo M. Ferguson, Association of Attorneys General
Mr. Charles F. Schwan, Council of State Governments
Mr. Frank Norton, Southern Governors Conference
Mr. Raymond I. Rigney, representing the Governor of Massa-
chusetts
Mr. Clement R. Bassett, representing the Governor of West
Virginia
Mr. Karl R. Allen and Mr. George Kinsman, representing the
Governor of the State of Florida
[p. 7]
May 22,1959
Mr. John Curran, AFL-CIO
Mr. Leonard English, Firefighters Union
Mr. Frank Norton, Southern Governors Conference
Mr. William McAdams, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Mr. Oliver Townsend, Atomic Energy Coordinator, State of
New York
Mr. William Berman and Mr. Lee Hydeman, University of
Michigan
Mr. Otto Christenson, Conference of State Manufacturers Asso-
ciation
Prof. George Framnton, University of Illinois Law School
-------
588 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
Dr. Roy Cleere, Colorado Department of Health
Mr. Leo Goodman, United Automobile Workers
In addition the Joint Committee received comments from the
AEC concerning possible revisions to the bill at a hearing on
August 26, 1959.
COMMENTS BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE
1. This proposed legislation is intended to clarify the responsi-
bilities of the Federal Government, on the one hand, and State and
local governments, on the other, with respect to the regulation of
byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials, as defined in the
Atomic Energy Act, in order to protect the public health and
safety from radiation hazards. It is also intended to increase pro-
grams of assistance and cooperation between the Commission and
the States so as to make it possible for the States to participate in
regulating the hazards associated with such materials.
2. The approach of the bill is considered appropriate, in the
opinion of the Joint Committee, for several reasons:
(a) The approach is on a State-by-State basis. It authorizes
the Commission to enter into agreements with Governors of indi-
vidual States, after proper certifications and findings by both the
Governor and the Commission as to the adequacy of the State's
program. A few States have indicated they will be ready in the
near future to begin discussions leading to an agreement to assume
regulatory responsibility for such materials. Others will not be
ready without more effort, more assistance, and more experience
for several, or perhaps many, years. The bill does not authorize a
wholesale relihquishment or abdication by the Commission of its
regulatory responsibilities but only a gradual, carefully consid-
ered turnover, on a State-by-state basis, as individual States may
become qualified.
(6) The bill applies to some, but not all, atomic energy activities
now regulated exclusively by AEC. It applies principally to radio-
isotopes, whose use and present licensing by AEC is widespread,
but whose hazard is local and limited. Moreover, the radiation
hazard from radioisotopes has similarities to that from other
radiation sources already regulated by States—such as X-ray
machines and radium. Licensing and regulation of more danger-
ous activities—such as nuclear reactors—will remain the exclusive
responsibility of the Commission. Thus a line is drawn between
types of activities deemed appropriate for regulation by individual
States at this time, and other activities where continued AEC
regulation is necessary.
(c) The bill authorizes increased training,, and assistance to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 589
States, and thus enhances the protection of the public health and
[P. 8]
safety, because most citizens look to their local health officers for
advice and protection against hazardous materials used in the com-
munity. The capacity of such officials to control hazards from
byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials would be in-
creased by the training- and programs of assistance authorized
under this bill. Presumably the capacity of such officials to deal
with other materials already under their responsibility—such as
X-ray machines and radium—would also be increased, thus further
protecting the public health and safety.
3. It is not intended to leave any room for the exercise of dual
or concurrent jurisdiction by States to control radiation hazards
by regulating byprodvict, source, or special nuclear materials. The
intent is to have the material regulated and licensed either by the
Commission, or by the State and local governments, but not by
both. The bill is intended to encourage States to increase their
knowledge and capacities, and to enter into agreements to assume
regulatory responsibilities over such materials.
4. The bill authorizes the Commission to provide training and
other services to State officials and employees and to enter into
agreements with the State under which the latter may perform
inspections and other functions cooperatively with the Commis-
sion. By these means, it is intended to assist the States to prepare
themselves for assuming independent regulatory jurisdiction.
5. The Joint Committee believes it important to emphasize that
the radiation standards adopted by States under the agreements
of this bill should either be identical or compatible with those of
the Federal Government. For this reason the committee removed
the language "to the extent feasible" in subsection g. of the orig-
inal AEG bill considered at hearings from May 19 to 22, 1959.
The committee recognizes the importance of the testimony before
it by numerous witnesses of the dangers of conflicting, overlap-
ping, and inconsistent standards in different jurisdictions, to the
hindrance of industry and jeopardy of public safety.
6. The bill establishes, in subsection h., a Federal Radiation
Council to advise the President with respect to radiation matters.
It is hoped that this Council will assist in obtaining uniformity of
basic standards among Federal agencies, as well as in programs of
cooperation with States. The Council, as established in the bill,
increases the membership from four to five, including the original
four members and the Secretary of Labor, or their designees, and
such other members as shall be appointed by the President. The
President, if he deems it appropriate, may appoint representatives
-------
590 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
of the public, or State or local agencies. The bill provides that the
Council shall consult qualified scientists and experts in radiation
matters, including the President of the National Academy of Sci-
ences, the Chairman of the National Committee on Radiation Pro-
tection and Measurement, and qualified experts in the field of
biology and medicine, and in the field of health physics.
7. The bill recognizes that this is interim legislation. The com-
mittee believes that the uses of atomic energy will be so wide-
spread in future years that States should continue to prepare
themselves for increased responsibilities.
[p. 9]
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1 of this bill adds a new section 274 to the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, with respect to cooperation with
States. The recommended new section 274 consists of subsections
a. through n., each of which will be briefly summarized below.
Subsection a. sets forth the purpose of the new section 274. As
redrafted by the committee, the purpose is clearly limited to the
materials already regulated by the Commission under the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954; namely, byproduct, source, and special nuclear
materials. The purpose, as redrafted by the committee, also pro-
vides for coordination of the development of radiation standards
for the guidance of Federal agencies and cooperation with States,
and recognizes that this is interim legislation in that, as the States
improve their capabilities, additional legislation may be needed,
perhaps in approximately 5 years.
Subsection b. is the principal substantive section of the bill. It
authorizes the Commission to enter into agreements with Gover-
nors of individual States providing for discontinuance of the
regulatory source material, and special nuclear materials, in
quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass. During the dura-
tion of such an agreement, it is recognized that the State shall have
the authority to regulate such materials for the protection of the
public health and safety from radiation hazards. Prior to such an
agreement, the Commission has the responsibility for the regula-
tion of such materials. Subsection b. permits the Commission to
discontinue its authority and encourages States, when qualified,
to assume the responsibility. The hazards from the types of mate-
rials encompass by far the greatest part of the Commission's pres-
ent licensing and regulatory activities. They are areas which are
susceptible to regulation by the States, after the State has estab-
lished a program for the control of radiation hazards. Subsection
b. provides that so long as the agreement is in effect the State shall
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 591
have regulatory authority over these materials.
Subsection c. of the bill excludes certain areas from an agree-
ment under subsection b. between the Commission and the Gov-
ernor of a State. These are areas which, because of their special
hazards, or for reasons of Federal responsibility, are believed
desirable for continued responsibility by the Commission. They
include the construction and operation of production or utilization
facilities, including reactors: the export or import of such mate-
rials or facilities; the disposal into the ocean or sea of such
materials; and the disposal of such other materials as the Com-
mission determines because of hazards or potential hazards should
not be disposed of without a license from the Commission. The
last sentence of subsection c. provides that the Commission, not-
withstanding any agreement under subsection b., is authorized to
require that the manufacturer, processor, or producer of any
equipment device, commodity, or other product containing such
materials shall not transfer possession or control of such products,
except pursuant to an AEC license. The Commission, in its
section-by-section analysis of the bill, forwarded by the May 13,
1959 letter, explained the purpose of this sentence as follows:
The controls which would be exercised by the Commission
under this provision would apply only to "transfer of posses-
sion or control" by the "manufacturer, processor, or
[p. 10]
producer." The Commission would not be authorized under
this provision to regulate any radiation hazards which might
arise during manufacture, transportation, or use of a product.
Under the provision, the Commission will be in a position
to assure that articles containing byproduct, source, or special
nuclear material will not be distributed unless they meet the
Commission's minimum safety requirements, including appro-
priate manufacturing and processing specifications and label-
ing requirements. Manufacturers of such devices as gages,
luminous markers, radiograph and teletherapy devices, elec-
tronic tubes, and so forth sell their products throughout the
United States and in many foreign countries. It is important
to assure that controls with respect to such products should
be uniform and should be uniformly applied.
There is an additional reason why it is important for the
Commission to continue the exercise of control over the dis-
tribution of articles containing source, byproduct, or special
nuclear material. As the supply of such radioactive ma-
terials, particularly byproduct materials, increases, there may
be increasing proposals by manufacturers and processors to
-------
592 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
incorporate such materials in articles (such as consumer prod-
ucts) that receive widespread distribution. Although it is
not a present problem, the extent to which the widespread
distribution of radioactive materials should be permitted in
this country may in the foreseeable future present questions
of public policy which can be resolved, and the hazards con-
trolled, only at the Federal level.
Subsection d. provides for certification by the Governor, and a
finding by the Commission, before any agreement may be en-
tered into. It is intended to protect the public health and
safety by assuring that the State program is adequate before the
Commission may withdraw its regulatory responsibilities.
Subsection e. provides for publication in the Federal Register
of such proposed agreements or exemptions, and provides an
opportunity for comment by interested persons.
Subsection f. authorizes the Commission to grant exemptions
from the licensing requirements.
Subsection g. provides that the Commission is authorized and
directed to cooperate with the States in the formulation of stand-
ards for the protection of public health and safety from radiation
hazards and to assure that State and Commission programs for
protection against radiation hazards will be coordinated and com-
patible. In most cases, it is intended that State and local stand-
ards should be the same as Federal standards in order to avoid
conflict, duplication, or gaps.
Subsection h. establishes a Federal Radiation Council, consisting
of nine members. The first seven are identified in the bill. By the
use of the words "or their designees," it is indicated that qualified
subordinates, particularly those with technical competence, may
serve on the Council. The Federal Radiation Council was recently
established by Executive order of the President. It is not intended
to interfere with the functions of the Council as established, but to
recognize it by statute, add the Secretary of Labor, provide for
[p. 11]
consultation with scientific experts, and authorize it to advise as
to programs of cooperation with States. As in the Executive
order, it provides that the Council shall advise the President with
respect to certain radiation matters, including guidance for all
Federal agencies in the formulation of basic radiation standards
and in the establishment and execution of programs of cooperation
with States. It is provided that the Council shall also perform
such other functions as the President may assign to it by Executive
order.
Subsection i. provides that the Commission is authorized to pro-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 593
vide training with or without charge, and such other assistance to
employees of any State or political subdivision thereof, or groups
of States, as the Commission deems appropriate. The last sen-
tence added by the Joint Committee, after hearings, provides that
any such assistance shall take into account the additional expenses
that may be incurred by the State as the consequence of the State
entering into an agreement with the Commission. It is not in-
tended that a cash grant shall be provided to pay for the admin-
istration of State regulatory programs. It is anticipated that
training, consulting, and similar arrangements may be made by
the Commission to reimburse State or State employees for ex-
penses, or pay salaries of such employees while associated with the
AEC.
Subsection j. of the bill provides that the Commission, upon its
own initiative after reasonable notice and opportunity for hear-
ings, or upon request of the Governor of a State, may terminate
or suspend its agreement with the State and reassert the licensing
and regulatory authority vested in the Commission under the
Atomic Energy Act, if the Commission finds that such termination
or suspension is required to protect the public health and safety.
This provision represents a reserve power, to be exercised only
under extraordinary circumstances.
Subsection k. provides that nothing in the new section 274 shall
be construed to affect the authority of any State or local agency to
regulate activities for purposes other than protection against
radiation hazards. This subsection is intended to make it clear
that the bill does not impair the State authority to regulate activi-
ties of AEC licensees for the manifold health, safety, and economic
purposes other than radiation protection. As indicated elsewhere,
the Commission has exclusive authority to regulate for protection
against radiation hazards until such time as the State enters into
an agreement with the Commission to assume such responsibility.
Subsection 1. provides appropriate recognition of the interest of
the States in activities which are continued under Commission
authority. Thus, the Commission is required to give prompt notice
to the States of the filing of license applications and to afford rea-
sonable opportunity for State representatives to offer evidence,
interrogate witnesses, and advise the Commission as to the
application.
Subsection m. of the bill is the same as subsection c. of the orig-
inal AEC bill and is designed to make it clear that the bill does not
affect the Commission's authority under the Atomic Energy Act to
issue appropriate rules, regulations, or orders to protect the com-
mon defense and security, to protect restricted data, and to guard
-------
594 LEGAL COMPILATION—KADIATION
against the loss or diversion of special nuclear materials.
Subsection n. defines the term "State" as meaning any State,
Territory, or possession of the United States, the Canal Zone,
Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. In addition, it is under-
[P. 12]
stood that the term "Governor" means the chief executive officer
of any such entity.
Section 2 of the bill amends section 108 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, by deleting the phrase "distributed under the pro-
visions of subsection 53a." from the second sentence. The purpose
of this amendment is to assure that the authority of the Commis-
sion to recapture special nuclear material whenever the Congress
declares that a state of war or national emergency exists, shall not
be impaired by reason of the Commission's having entered into an
agreement with the Governor of any State.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In accordance with subsection 4 of rule XXIX of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law recommended by the
bill accompanying this report are shown as follows (deleted matter
is shown in black brackets and new matter is printed in italic):
PUBLIC LAW 83-703
THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED
*******
"SEC. 108. WAR OR NATIONAL EMERGENCY.—Whenever the Con-
gress declares that a state of war or national emergency exists, the
Commission is authorized to suspend any licenses granted under
this Act if in its judgment such action is necessary to the common
defense and security. The Commission is authorized during such
period, if the Commission finds it necessary to the common defense
and security, to order the recapture of any special nuclear material
[distributed under the provisions of subsection 53a.,] or to order
the operation of any facility licensed under section 103 or 104, and
is authorized to order the entry into any plant or facility in order
to recapture such material, or to operate such facility. Just com-
pensation shall be paid for any damages caused by the recapture
of any special nuclear material or by the operation of any such
facility.
*******
"SEC. 274. Cooperation With States.—
"a. It is the purpose of this section—
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 595
"(1) to recognize the interests of the States in the peaceful
uses of atomic energy, and to clarify the respective responsi-
bilities under this Act of the States and the Commission with
respect to the regulation of byproduct, source, and special
nuclear materials;
"(2) to recognize the need, and establish programs for,
cooperation between the States and the Commission with re-
spect to control of radiation hazards associated with use of
such materials;
"(3) to promote an orderly regulatory pattern between
the Commission and State governments with respect to
nuclear development and use and regulation of byproduct,
source, and special nuclear materials;
"(4) to establish procedures and criteria for discontinu-
ance of certain of the Commission's regulatory responsibili-
ties with respect to byproduct, source, and special nuclear
materials, and the assumption thereof by the States;
[p. 13]
"(5) to provide for coordination of the development of
radiation standards for the guidance of Federal agencies and
cooperation with the States; and
"(6) to recognize that, as the States improve their capabil-
ities to regulate effectively such materials, additional legisla-
tion may be desirable.
"b. Except a-s provided in subsection c., the Commission is
authorized to enter into agreements with the Governor of any
State providing for discontinuance of the regulatory authority of
the Commission under chapters 6, 7, and 8, and section 161 of this
Act, with respect to any one or more of the following materials
within the Stnte—
" (1) byproduct materials;
" (2) source materials;
"(3) special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient
to form a critical mass.
During the duration of such an agreement it is recognized that the
State shall have authority to regulate the materials covered by the
agreement for the protection of the public health and safety from
radiation hazards.
"c. No agreement entered into pursuant to subsection b. shall
provide for discontinuance of any authority and the Commission
shall retain authority and responsibility with respect to regulation
of-
"(1) the construction and operation of any production or
utilization facility;
-------
596 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
"(2) the export from or import into the United States of
byproduct, source, or special nuclear material, or of any
production or utilization facility;
" (3) the disposal into the ocean or sea of byproduct, source,
or special nuclear waste materials as defined in regulations
or orders of the Commission;
"(4) the disposal of such other byproduct, source, or spe-
cial nuclear material as the Commission determines by regula-
tion or order should, because of the hazards or potential
hazards thereof, not be so disposed of without a license from
the Commission. Notwithstanding any agreement betiveen
the Commission and any State pursuant to subsection b., the
Commission is authorized by rule, regulation, or order to re-
quire that the manufacturer, processor, or producer of any
equipment, device, commodity, or other product containing
source, byproduct, or special nuclear material shall not trans-
fer possession or control of such product except pursuant to
a license issued by the Commission.
"d. The Commission shall enter into an agreement under
subsection b. of this section with any State if—
"(1) the Governor of that State certifies that the State has
a program for the control of radiation hazards adequate to
protect the public health and safety with respect to the mate-
rials within the State covered by the proposed agreement, and
that the State desires to assume regulatory responsibility for
such materials; and
"(2) the Commission finds that the State program is com-
patible with the Commission's program for the regulation of
such materials, and that the State program is adequate to
protect the public health and safety with respect to the
materials covered by the proposed agreement.
[p. 14]
"e. (1) Before any agreement under subsection b. is signed by
the Commission, the terms of the proposed agreement and of pro-
posed exemptions pursuant to subsection f. shall be published once
each week for four consecutive weeks in the Federal Register; and
such opportunity for comment by interested persons on the pro-
posed agreement and exemptions shall be allowed as the Com-
mission determines by regulation or order to be appropriate.
"(2) Each proposed agreement shall include the proposed effec-
tive date of such proposed agreement or exemptions. The agree-
ment and exemptions shall be published in the Federal Register
within thirty days after signature by the Commission and the
Governor.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 597
"/. The Commission is authorized and directed, by regulation or
order, to grant such exemptions from the licensing requirements
contained in chapters 6, 7, and 8, and from its regulations appli-
cable to licensees as the Commission finds necessary or appropriate
to carry out any agreement entered into pursuant to subsection b.
of this section.
"g. The Commission is authorized and directed to cooperate
with the States in the formulation of standards for protection
against hazards of radiation to assure that State and Commission
programs for protection against hazards of radiation will be
coordinated and compatible.
"h. There is hereby established a Federal Radiation Council,
consisting of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the
Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, or
their designees, and such other members as shall be appointed by
the President. The Council shall consult qualified scientists and
experts in radiation matters, including the President of the
National Academy of Sciences, the Chairman of the National
Committee on Radiation Protection and Measurement, and quali-
fied experts in the field of biology and medicine and in the field of
health physics. The Special Assistant to the President for Science
and Technology, or his designee, is authorized to attend meetings,
participate in the deliberations of, and to advise the Council. The
Chairman of the Council shall be designated by the President, from
time to time, from among the members of the Council. The Coun-
cil shall advise the President with respect to radiation matters,
directly or indirectly affecting health, including guidance for all
Federal agencies in the formulation of radiation standards and in
the establishment and execution of programs of cooperation with
States. The Council shall also perform such other functions as the
President may assign to it by Executive order.
"i. The Commission in carrying out its licensing and regulatory
responsibilities tinder this Act is authorized to enter into agree-
ments with any State, or group of States, to perform inspections
or other functions on a cooperative basis as the Commission deems
appropriate. The Commission -is also authorized to provide train-
ing, with or ivithout charge, to employees of, and such other assist-
ance to, any State or political subdivision thereof or group of
States as the Commission deems appropriate. Any such provi-
sion or assistance by the Commission shall take into account the
additional expenses that may be incurred by a State as a conse-
quence of the State's entering into an agreement with the,
Commission pursuant to subsection b. [p. 15]
-------
598 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
"j. The Commission, upon its own initiative after reasonable
notice and opportunity for hearing to the State with which an
agreement under subsection b. has become effective, or upon re-
quest of the Governor of such State, may terminate or suspend its
agreement with the State and reassert the licensing and regulatory
authority vested in it under this Act, if the Commission finds that
such termination or suspension is required to protect the public
health and safety.
"k. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the
authority of any State or local agency to regulate activities for
purposes other than protection against radiation hazards.
"I. With respect to each application for Commission license
authorizing an activity as to which the Commission's authority is
continued pursuant to subsection c., the Commission shall give
prompt notice to the State or States in which the activity ^vill be
conducted of the filing of the license application; and shall afford
reasonable opportunity for State representatives to offer evidence,
interrogate witnesses, and advise the Commission as to the appli-
cation without requiring such representatives to take a position
for or against the granting of the application.
"m. No agreement entered into under subsection b., and no
exemption granted pursuant to subsection /., shall affect the
authority of the Commission under subsection 161b. or i. to issue
rules, regulations, or orders to protect the common defense and
security, to protect restricted data or to guard against the loss or
diversion of special nuclear material. For purposes of subsection
161i., activities covered by exemptions granted pursuant to sub-
section f. shall be deemed to constitute activities authorized pur-
suant to this Act; and special nuclear material acquired by any
person pursuant to such an exemption shall be deemed to have
been acquired pursuant to section 53.
"n. As used in this section, the term 'State' means any State,
Territory, or possession of the United States, the Canal Zone,
Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia."
[p. 16]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 599
l.ln(2) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
H.K. REP. No. 1125, 86th Cong., 1st Sess. (1959)
AMENDMENTS TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954,
AS AMENDED, WITH RESPECT TO COOPERATION
WITH STATES
SEPTEMBER 2,1959.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. DURHAM, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 8755]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered H.R.
8755, an original committee bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended, with respect to cooperation with States, re-
port favorably thereon with amendments and recommend that the
bill as amended do pass.
The amendments to the bill adopted by the Joint Committee are
as follows:
1. On page 3, line 6, strike out the words "and license".
2. On page 3, line 17, after the word "production", strike out the
word "of" and insert in lieu thereof the word "or".
3. On page 5, line 1, strike out the word "three" and insert in
lieu thereof the word "four".
4. On page 5, strike out all of lines 6 through 17, and on line 18
renumber clause (3) as clause (2).
5. On page 6, line 10, strike out all after "h.", strike out all of
lines 11 through 20, and in line 21, strike out the words "radiation
hazards and standards" and the period, and insert in lieu thereof
the following words:
There is hereby established a Federal Radiation Council,
consisting of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secre-
tary of Labor, or their designees, and such other members as
shall be appointed by the President. The Council shall con-
sult qualified scientists and experts in radiation matters,
-------
600 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
including the President of the National Academy of Sciences,
the Chairman of the National Committee on Eadiation Pro-
[p. 1]
tection and Measurement, and qualified experts in the field
of biology and medicine and in the field of health physics.
6. On page 8, line 6, strike out all after "k.", strike out all of
lines 7 through 13, and in line 14 strike out the word "regulations"
and the period.
EXPLANATION OF COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
The amendments adopted by the committee are all minor or
technical in nature, and are not intended to change the basic pur-
poses and objectives of the bill as proposed by the Atomic Energy
Commission.
Amendment No. 1, in subsection b., strikes out the words "and
license" after the word "regulate". The words "and license" were
not considered necessary because, as used elsewhere in the bill, the
word "regulate" includes the licensing function. Thus, for rea-
sons of consistency, the words "and license" in this subsection
were deleted as being unnecessary.
Amendment No. 2 corrects a typographical error in changing
the word "of" to the word "or".
Amendment No. 3, in clause (1) of subsection e., requires that
the terms of a proposed agreement and proposed exemptions shall
be published in the Federal Register each week for 4 consecutive
weeks, rather than 3, in order that all interested persons, including
State officials and the general public, may be fully informed and
have opportunity to comment to the Commission.
Amendment No. 4 deleted clause (2) of subsection e., which
would have provided a 45-day review period by the Joint Commit-
tee on Atomic Energy of any proposed agreement or amendment.
The Commission has the responsibility, under section 202 of the
Atomic Energy Act, of keeping the Joint Committee "fully and
currently informed." Under section 202, it is intended that the
Commission shall inform the committee of all pending agreements
with individual States, including the proposed certifications and
findings under subsection d. as to the adequacy of State programs,
as well as operations under agreements after they may become
effective. The Joint Committee does not consider it necessary to
provide for formal review of each individual proposed agreement
or amendment, but does believe it important that the committee
be kept fully informed by the Commission of the operations under
the provisions of this bill.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 601
Amendment No. 5 in subsection h. amends the composition of
the Federal Radiation Council in the bill, as introduced, in certain
respects. First, it substitutes the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare for the Surgeon General as a member of the Council.
The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare includes both
the Public Health Service, under the Surgeon General, and the
Federal Food and Drug Administration, which also has an interest
in radiation matters. It is intended that the Secretary will receive
advice from both of these agencies. The Secretary may, of course,
if he so desires, designate the Surgeon General to serve on the
Council as his designee.
As amended, subsection h. names five members of the Council;
namely, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the
Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Secretary of De-
fense, the Secretary of Commerce, and the Secretary of Labor, or
their designees, and such other members as shall be appointed by
the President. It provides that the Council shall consult qualified
[p. 2]
scientists and experts in radiation matters, including the President
of the National Academy of Sciences, the Chairman of the Na-
tional Committee on Radiation Protection and Measurement, and
qualified experts in the field of biology and medicine and in the
field of health physics. In this manner, persons named in the
statute are all appointees of the President, and members of the
President's official family, and the President may appoint addi-
tional members, including representatives of the public, and State
or local agencies. The bill emphasizes that the Council shall con-
sult qualified scientists and obtain their advice before advising the
President on radiation matters.
The Joint Committee was informed that subsection h., as
amended, would meet with no objections by the Director of the
Bureau of the Budget or the Secretary of the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare.
Amendment No. 6 deletes the first sentence of subsection k. as
unnecessary. As explained in more detail subsequently in this
report, the Commission now regulates and licenses the materials
covered by the Atomic Energy Act (byproduct, source, and spe-
cial nuclear materials) to protect against radiation hazards. With
or without this sentence, in order for a State to so regulate or
license such materials, it must first establish an adequate pro-
gram for this purpose and enter into an agreement with the
Commission.
-------
602 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
SUMMARY OF BILL
This bill, including the minor amendments approved by the Joint
Committee, contains the principal provisions of its predecessor,
H.R. 7214, as proposed by the Atomic Energy Commission, and
introduced by Congressman Durham (by request) on May 18,
1959. The objectives of the predecessor bill were explained by
the letter dated May 13, 1959, to Chairman Anderson from A. R.
Luedecke, General Manager of the AEG, as follows:
Essentially, the objectives of this proposed bill are to
provide procedures and criteria whereby the Commission
may "turn over" to individual States, as they become
ready, certain denned areas of regulatory jurisdiction.
Certain areas, as to which interstate, national, or inter-
national considerations may be paramount, would be
excluded. In addition, certain areas would be excluded
because the technical safety considerations are of such
complexity that it is not likely that any State would be
prepared to deal with them during the foreseeable future.
To assist the States to prepare themselves for assum-
ing independent regulatory jurisdiction, the new bill (like
the 1957 bill) specifically authorizes the Commission to
provide training and other services to State officials and
employees and to enter into agreements with the States
under which the latter may perform inspections and
other functions cooperatively with the Commission.
The bill includes criteria which would need to be met
before the Commission could turn over any of its re-
sponsibilities to a State; and provisions pursuant to
which the Commission might reassert its authority. The
bill provides that the Commission may, upon request of
the Governor or upon its own initiative, terminate or
[p. 3]
suspend its agreement with the State and reassert its
regulatory authority if the Commission finds that such
termination or suspension is required to protect public
health and safety. Opportunity for hearing is provided.
The bill also contains specific provisions designed to
remove doubt as to the relative responsibilities of the
Commission and the States * * *.
In summary, the principal provisions of the bill authorize the
Commission to withdraw its responsibility for regulation of cer-
tain materials—principally radioisotopes—but not over more haz-
ardous activities such as the licensing and regulation of reactors.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 603
The bill requires compatibility of Federal and State radiation
standards, and authorizes programs to assist the States to assume
independent regulatory jurisdiction.
This bill, as amended by the Joint Committee, contains all the
principal provisions, and is intended to accomplish the objectives
of the bill proposed by the Commission. In addition, it contains
certain revisions made by the Joint Committee as follows:
First, the bill has been redrafted by the Joint Committee to
make it clear that it does not attempt to regulate materials which
the AEC does not now regulate under the Atomic Energy Act of
1954. Such other sources such as X-ray machines and radium
also present substantial radiation hazards, but have been for many
years the responsibility of the States, the Public Health Service,
or other agencies.
Secondly, as a drafting change, subsection b. in the bill as orig-
inally proposed by AEC (S. 1987) contained two clauses—(1)
and (2). Because of their substantive importance, these clauses
were redrafted as subsections b. and c., and certain other sub-
sections renumbered accordingly.
Thirdly, subsection h., added by this bill, establishes a Federal
Radiation Council to advise the President on radiation matters,
similar to the Council recently established by Executive order. It
does not modify the basic functions of the Council, but increases
its membership from four to five members, including the Secre-
tary of Labor, and provides that the Council shall consult qualified
Scientists and experts in radiation matters.
Fourth, a sentence was added by the Joint Committee in new
subsection i., pertaining to training and assistance, that in pro-
viding assistance to the States, the Commission shall take into ac-
count the additional expenses that may be incurred by the State as
a consequence of the State's entering into an agreement with the
Commission.
In summary, this bill provides the basic authorization requested
by the Commission, and also incorporates certain additional fea-
tures considered desirable by the committee, after hearings and
careful consideration of all the provisions of the bill.
[p. 4]
COMMENTS BY THE JOINT COMMITTEE
1. This proposed legislation is intended to clarify the responsi-
bilities of the Federal Government, on the one hand, and State and
local governments, on the other, with respect to the regulation of
byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials, as defined in the
Atomic Energy Act, in order to protect the public health and
-------
604 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
safety from radiation hazards. It is also intended to increase pro-
grams of assistance and cooperation between the Commission and
the States so as to make it possible for the States to participate in
regulating the hazards associated with such materials.
2. The approach of the bill is considered appropriate, in the
opinion of the Joint Committee, for several reasons:
(a) The approach is on a State-by-State basis. It authorizes
the Commission to enter into agreements with Governors of in-
dividual States, after proper certifications and findings by both the
Governor and the Commission as to the adequacy of the State's
program. A few States have indicated they will be ready in the
near future to begin discussions leading to an agreement to assume
regulatory responsibility for such materials. Others will not be
ready without more effort, more assistance, and more experience
for several, or perhaps many, years. The bill does not authorize a
wholesale relinquishment or abdication by the Commission of its
regulatory responsibilities but only a gradual, carefully considered
turnover, on a State-by-state basis, as individual States may be-
come qualified.
(6) The bill applies to some, but not all, atomic energy activities
now regulated exclusively by AEC. It applies principally to radio-
isotopes, whose use and present licensing by AEC is widespread,
but whose hazard is local and limited. Moreover, the radiation
hazard from radioisotopes has similarities to that from other rad-
iation sources already regulated by States—such as X-ray ma-
chines and radium. Licensing and regulation of more dangerous
activities—such as nuclear reactors—will remain the exclusive
responsibility of the Commission. Thus a line is drawn between
types of activities deemed appropriate for regulation by individual
States at this time, and other activities where continued AEC
regulation is necessary.
(c) The bill authorizes increased training and assistance to
States, and thus enhances the protection of the public health and
[p. 8]
safety, because most citizens look to their local health officers for
advice and protection against hazardous materials used in the
community. The capacity of such officials to control hazards from
byproduct, source, and special nuclear materials would be in-
creased by the training and programs of assistance authorized
under this bill. Presumably the capacity of such officials to deal
with other materials already under their responsibility—such as
X-ray machines and radium—would also be increased, thus
further protecting the public health and safety.
3. It is not intended to leave any room for the exercise of dual
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 605
or concurrent jurisdiction by States to control radiation hazards
by regulating byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials. The
intent is to have the material regulated and licensed either by the
Commission, or by the State and local governments, but not by
both. The bill is intended to encourage States to increase their
knowledge and capacities, and to enter into agreements to assume
regulatory responsibilities over such materials.
4. The bill authorizes the Commission to provide training and
other services to State officials and employees and to enter into
agreements with the State under which the latter may perform
inspections and other functions cooperatively with the Commis-
sion. By these means, it is intended to assist the States to prepare
themselves for assuming independent regulatory jurisdiction.
5. The Joint Committee believes it important to emphasize that
the radiation standards adopted by States under the agreements of
this bill should either be identical or compatible with those of the
Federal Government. For this reason the committee removed the
language "to the extent feasible" in subsection g. of the original
AEC bill considered at hearings from May 19 to 22, 1959. The
committee recognizes the importance of the testimony before it by
numerous witnesses of the dangers of conflicting, overlapping, and
inconsistent standards in different jurisdictions, to the hindrance
of industry and jeopardy of public safety.
6. The bill establishes, in subsection h., a Federal Radiation
Council to advise the President with respect to radiation matters.
It is hoped that this Council will assist in obtaining uniformity of
basic standards among Federal agencies, as well as in programs
of cooperation with States. The Council, as established in the bill,
increases the membership from four to five, including the original
four members and the Secretary of Labor, or their designees, and
such other members as shall be appointed by the President. The
President, if he deems it appropriate, may appoint representatives
of the public, or State or local agencies. The bill provides that the
Council shall consult qualified scientists and experts in radiation
matters, including the President of the National Academy of Sci-
ences, the Chairman of the National Committee on Radiation Pro-
tection and Measurement, and qualified experts in the field of
biology and medicine, and in the field of health physics.
7. The bill recognizes that this is interim legislation. The com-
mittee believes that the uses of atomic energy will be so wide-
spread in future years that States should continue to prepare
themselves for increased responsibilities.
[p. 9]
-------
606 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1 of this bill adds a new section 274 to the Atomic En-
ergy Act of 1954, as amended, with respect to cooperation with
States. The recommended new section 274 consists of subsections
a. through n., each of which will be briefly summarized below.
Subsection a. sets forth the purpose of the new section 274. As
redrafted by the committee, the purpose is clearly limited to the
materials already regulated by the Commission under the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954; namely, byproduct, source, and special nu-
clear materials. The purpose, as redrafted by the committee, also
provides for coordination of the development of radiation stand-
ards for the guidance of Federal agencies and cooperation with
States, and recognizes that this is interim legislation in that, as
the States improve their capabilities, additional legislation may be
needed, perhaps in approximately 5 years.
Subsection b. is the principal substantive section of the bill. It
authorizes the Commission to enter into agreements with Gov-
ernors of individual States providing for discontinuance of the
regulatory source material, and special nuclear materials, in
quantities not sufficient to form a critical mass. During the dura-
tion of such an agreement, it is recognized that the State shall have
the authority to regulate such materials for the protection of the
public health and safety from radiation hazards. Prior to such an
agreement, the Commission has the responsibility for the regula-
tion of such materials. Subsection b. permits the Commission to
discontinue its authority and encourages States, when qualified,
to assume the responsibility. The hazards from the types of ma-
terials encompass by far the greatest part of the Commission's
present licensing and regulatory activities. They are areas which
are susceptible to regulation by the States, after the State has
established a program for the control of radiation hazards. Sub-
section b. provides that so long as the agreement is in effect the
State shall have regulatory authority over these materials.
Subsection c. of the bill excludes certain areas from an agree-
ment under subsection b. between the Commission and the Gov-
ernor of a State. These are areas which, because of their special
hazards, or for reasons of Federal responsibility, are believed de-
sirable for continued responsibility by the Commission. They in-
clude the construction and operation of production or utilization
facilities, including reactors; the export or import of such ma-
terials or facilities; the disposal into the ocean or sea of such
materials; and the disposal of such other materials as the Com-
mission determines because of hazards or potential hazards should
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 607
not be disposed of without a license from the Commission. The
last sentence of subsection c. provides that the Commission, not-
withstanding any agreement under subsection b., is authorized to
require that the manufacturer, processor, or producer of any
equipment device, commodity, or other product containing such
materials shall not transfer possession or control of such products,
except pursuant to an AEC license. The Commission, in its
section-by-section analysis of the bill, forwarded by the May 13,
1959 letter, explained the purpose of this sentence as follows:
The controls which would be exercised by the Commis-
sion under this provision would apply only to "transfer of
possession or control" by the "manufacturer, processor,
[p. 10]
or producer." The Commission would not be authorized
under this provision to regulate any radiation hazards
which might arise during manufacture, transportation,
or use of a product.
Under the provision, the Commission will be in a posi-
tion to assure that articles containing byproduct, source,
or special nuclear material will not be distributed unless
they meet the Commission's minimum safety require-
ments, including appropriate manufacturing and pro-
cessing specifications and labeling requirements.
Manufacturers of such devices as gages, luminous mark-
ers, radiograph and teletherapy devices, electronic tubes,
and so forth sell their products throughout the United
States and in many foreign countries. It is important to
assure that controls with respect to such products should
be uniform and should be uniformly applied.
There is an additional reason why it is important for
the Commission to continue the exercise of control over
the distribution of articles containing source, byproduct,
or special nuclear material. As the supply of such radio-
active materials, particularly byproduct materials,
increases, there may be increasing proposals by manu-
facturers and processors to incorporate such materials in
articles (such as consumer products) that receive wide-
spread distribution. Although it is not a present prob-
lem, the extent to which the widespread distribution of
radioactive materials should be permitted in this country
may in the foreseeable future present questions of public
policy which can be resolved, and the hazards controlled,
only at the Federal level.
Subsection d. provides for certification by the Governor, and a
-------
608 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
finding by the Commission, before any agreement may be entered
into. It is intended to protect the public health and safety by as-
suring that the State program is adequate before the Commission
may withdraw its regulatory responsibilities.
Subsection e. provides for publication in the Federal Register of
such proposed agreements or exemptions, and provides an op-
portunity for comment by interested persons.
Subsection f. authorizes the Commission to grant exemptions
from the licensing requirements.
Subsection g. provides that the Commission is authorized and
directed to cooperate with the States in the formulation of stand-
ards for the protection of public health and safety from radiation
hazards and to assure that State and Commission programs for
protection against radiation hazards will be coordinated and com-
patible. In most cases, it is intended that State and local stand-
ards should be the same as Federal standards in order to avoid
conflict, duplication, or gaps.
Subsection h. establishes a Federal Radiation Council, consisting
of five members, and such others as may be appointed by the Pres-
ident. By the use of the words "or their designees," it is indicated
that qualified subordinates, particularly those with technical com-
petence, may serve on the Council. The Federal Radiation Council
was recently established by Executive order of the President. It
is not intended to interfere with the functions of the Council as
established, but to recognize it by statute, add the Secretary of
[p. 11]
Labor, provide for consultation with scientific experts, and au-
thorize it to advise as to programs of cooperation with States. As
in the Executive order, it provides that the Council shall advise the
President with respect to certain radiation matters, including
guidance for all Federal agencies in the formulation of basic radia-
tion standards and in the establishment and execution of programs
of cooperation with States. It is provided that the Council shall
also perform such other functions as the President may assign to
it by Executive order.
Subsection i. provides that the Commission is authorized to pro-
vide training with or without charge, and such other assistance to
employees of any State or political subdivision thereof, or groups
of States, as the Commission deems appropriate. The last sen-
tence added by the Joint Committee, after hearings, provides that
any such assistance shall take into account the additional ex-
penses that may be incurred by the State as the consequence of the
State entering into an agreement with the Commission. It is not
intended that a cash grant shall be provided to pay for the ad-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 609
ministration of State regulatory programs. It is anticipated that
training, consulting, and similar arrangements may be made by
the Commission to reimburse State or State employees for ex-
penses, or pay salaries of such employees while associated with the
AEC.
Subsection j. of the bill provides that the Commission, upon its
own initiative after reasonable notice and opportunity for hear-
ings, or upon request of the Governor of a State, may terminate or
suspend its agreement with the State and reassert the licensing
and regulatory authority vested in the Commission under the
Atomic Energy Act, if the Commission finds that such termina-
tion or suspension is required to protect the public health and
safety. This provision represents a reserve power, to be exercised
only under extraordinary circumstances.
Subsection k. provides that nothing in the new section 274 shall
be construed to affect the authority of any State or local agency to
regulate activities for purposes other than protection against rad-
iation hazards. This subsection is intended to make it clear that
the bill does not impair the State authority to regulate activities of
AEC licensees for the manifold health, safety, and economic pur-
poses other than radiation protection. As indicated elsewhere, the
Commission has exclusive authority to regulate for protection
against radiation hazards until such time as the State enters into
an agreement with the Commission to assume such responsibility.
Subsection 1. provides appropriate recognition of the interest of
the States in activities which are continued under Commission au-
thority. Thus, the Commission is required to give prompt notice
to the States of the filing of license applications and to afford rea-
sonable opportunity for State representatives to offer evidence,
interrogate witnesses, and advise the Commission as to the
application.
Subsection m. of the bill is the same as subsection c. of the
original AEC bill and is designed to make it clear that the bill
does not affect the Commission's authority under the Atomic En-
ergy Act to issue appropriate rules, regulations, or orders to pro-
tect the common defense and security, to protect restricted data,
and to guard against the loss or diversion of special nuclear
materials.
Subsection n. defines the term "State" as meaning any State,
Territory, or possession of the United States, the Canal Zone,
Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. In addition, it is
[p. 12]
understood that the term "Governor" means the chief executive
officer of any such entity.
-------
610 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
Section 2 of the bill amends section 108 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, by deleting the phrase "distributed under the pro-
visions of subsection 53a." from the second sentence. The pur-
pose of this amendment is to assure that the authority of the
Commission to recapture special nuclear material whenever the
Congress declares that a state of war or national emergency
exists, shall not be impaired by reason of the Commission's having
entered into an agreement with the Governor of any State.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In accordance with clause (3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law recommended
by the bill accompanying this report are shown as follows (deleted
matter is shown in black brackets and new matter is printed in
italic):
PUBLIC LAW 83-703
THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED
*******
"SEC. 108. WAR OR NATIONAL EMERGENCY.—Whenever the Con-
gress declares that a state of war or national emergency exists, the
Commission is authorized to suspend any licenses granted under
this Act if in its judgment such action is necessary to the com-
mon defense and security. The Commission is authorized during
such period, if the Commission finds it necessary to the common
defense and security, to order the recapture of any special nuclear
material [distributed under the provisions of subsection 53 a.,] or
to order the operation of any facility licensed under section 103 or
104, and is authorized to order the entry into any plant or facility
in order to recapture such material, or to operate such facility.
Just compensation shall be paid for any damages caused by the
recapture of any special nuclear material or by the operation of
any such facility.
*******
"SEC. 274. Cooperation With States.—
"a. It is the purpose of this section—
"(1) to recognize the interests of the States in the peace-
ful uses of atomic energy, and to clarify the respective re-
sponsibilities under this Act of the States and the Commission
with respect to the regulation of byproduct, source, and spe-
cial nuclear materials;
"(2) to recognize the need, and establish programs for,
cooperation between the States and the Commission with
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 611
respect to control of radiation hazards associated with use of
such materials;
"(3) to promote an orderly regulatory pattern between the
Commission and State governments with respect to nuclear
development and use and regulation of byproduct, source, and
special nuclear materials;
"(4) to establish procedures and criteria for discontin-
uance of certain of the Commission's regulatory responsibil-
ities with respect to byproduct, source, and special nuclear
materials, and the assumption thereof by the States;
[p. 13]
"(5) to provide for coordination of the development of
radiation standards for the guidance of Federal agencies and
cooperation with the States; and
"(6) to recognize that, as the States improve their capabil-
ities to regulate effectively such materials, additional legisla-
tion may be desirable.
"b. Except as provided in subsection c., the Commission is au-
thorized to enter into agreements with the Governor of any State
providing for discontinuance of the regulatory authority of the
Commission under chapters 6, 7 and 8, and section 161 of this Act,
with respect to any one or more of the following materials within
the State—
" (1) byproduct materials;
"(2) source materials;
" (3) special nuclear materials in quantities not sufficient to
form a critical mass.
During the duration of such an agreement it is recognized that the
State shall have authority to regulate the materials, covered by the
agreement for the protection of the public health and safety from
radiation hazards.
"c. No agreement entered into pursuant to subsection b. shall
provide for discontinuance of any authority and the Commission
shall retain authority and responsibility with respect to regulation
of—
" (1) the construction and operation of any production or
utilization facility;
"(2) the export from or import into the United States of
byproduct, source, or special nuclear material, or of any pro-
duction or utilization facility;
"(3) the disposal into the ocean or sea of byproduct,
source, or special nuclear waste materials as defined in reg-
ulations or orders of the Commission;
"(4) the disposal of such other byproduct, source, or spe-
-------
612 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
cial nuclear material as the Commission determines by regula-
tion or order should, because of the hazards or potential
hazards thereof, not be so disposed of without a license from
the Commission.
Notwithstanding any agreement between the Commission and any
State pursuant to subsection b., the Commission is authorized by
rule, regulation, or order to require that the manufacturer, proc-
essor, or producer of any equipment, device, commodity, or other
product containing source, byproduct, or special nuclear material
shall not transfer possession or control of such product except
pursuant to a license issued by the Commission.
"d. The Commission shall enter into an agreement under sub-
section b. of this section with any State if—
" (1) the Governor of that State certifies that the State has
a program for the control of radiation hazards adequate to
protect the public health and safety with respect to the ma-
terials within the State covered by the proposed agreement,
and that the State desires to assume regulatory responsibility
for such materials; and
"(2) the Commission finds that the State program is com-
patible with the Commission's program for the regulation of
such materials, and that the State program is adequate to
protect the public health and safety witli respect to the ma-
terials covered by the proposed agreement.
"e. (1) Before any agreement under subsection b. is signed by
the Commission, the terms of the proposed agreement and of pro-
[p. 14]
posed exemptions pursuant to subsection f. shall be published once
each iveek for four consecutive weeks in the Federal Register; and
such opportunity for comment by interested persons on the pro-
posed agreement and exemptions shall be allowed as the Commis-
sion determines by regulation or order to be appropriate.
"(2) Each proposed agreement shall include the proposed ef-
fective date of such proposed agreement or exemptions. The agree-
ment and exemptions shall be published in the Federal Register
ivithin thirty days after signature by the Commission and the
Governor.
"f. The Commission is authorized and directed, by regulation or
order, to grant such exemptions from the licensing requirements
contained in chapters 6, 7, and 8, and from its regulations appli-
cable to licensees as the Commission finds necessary or appropriate
to carry out any agreement entered into pursuant to subsection b.
of this section.
"g. The Commission is authorized and directed to cooperate
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 613
with the States in the formulation of standards for protection
against hazards of radiation to assure that State and Commission
programs for protection against hazards of radiation will be co-
ordinated and compatible.
"h. There is hereby established a Federal Radiation Council,
consisting of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the
Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, or
their designees, and such other members as shall be appointed by
the President. The Council shall consult qualified scientists and
experts in radiation, matters, including the President of the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences, the Chairman of the National Com-
mittee on Radiation Protection and Measurement, and qualified
experts in the field of biology and medicine and in the field of health
physics. The Special Assistant to the President for Science and
Technology, or his designee, is authorized to attend meetings, par-
ticipate in the deliberations of, and to advise the Council. The
Chairman of the Council shall be designated by the President, from
time to time, from among the members of the Council. The Coun-
cil shall advise the President with respect to radiation matters, di-
rectly or indirectly affecting health, including guidance for all
Federal agencies in the formulation of radiation standards and
in the establishment and execution of programs of cooperation
with States. The Council shall also perform such other functions
as the President may assign to it by Executive order.
"i. The Commission in carrying out its licensing and regulatory
responsibilities under this Act is authorized to enter into agree-
ments with any State, or group of States, to perform inspections or
other functions on a cooperative basis as the Commission deems
appropriate. The Commission is also authorized to provide train-
ing, with or without charge, to employees of, and such other as-
sistance to, any State or political subdivision thereof or group of
States as the Commission deems appropriate. Any such provision
or assistance by the Commission shall take into account the ad-
ditional expenses that may be incurred by a State as a consequence
of the State's entering into an agreement with the Commission
pursuant to subsection b.
"j. The Commission, upon its own initiative after reasonable
notice and opportunity for hearing to the State with which an
agreement under subsection b. has become effective, or upon re-
quest of the Governor of such State, may terminate or suspend its
agreement with the State and reassert the licensing and regulatory
[p. 15]
authority vested in it under this Act, if the Commission finds that
-------
614
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
such termination or suspension is required to protect the public
health and safety.
"k. Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the au-
thority of any State or local agency to regulate activities for pur-
poses other than protection against radiation hazards.
"I. With respect to each application for Commission license au-
thorizing an activity as to which the Commission's authority is
continued pursuant to subsection c., the Commission shall give
prompt notice to the State or States in which the activity will be
conducted of the filing of the license application; and shall afford
reasonable opportunity for State representatives to offer evidence,
interrogate witnesses, and advise the Commission as to the ap-
plication without requiring such representatives to take a position
for or against the granting of the application.
"m. No agreement entered into under subsection b., and no ex-
emption granted pursuant to subsection /., shall affect the author-
ity of the Commission under subsection 161 b. or i. to issue rules,
regulations, or orders to protect the common defense and security,
to protect restricted data or to guard against the loss or diversion
of special nuclear material. For purposes of subsection 161i.,
activities covered by exemptions granted pursuant to subsection f.
shall be deemed to constitute activities authorized pursuant to this
Act; and special nuclear material acquired by any person pursuant
to such an exemption shall be deemed to have been acquired pur-
suant to section 53.
"n. As used in this section, the term 'State' means any State,
Territory, or possession of the United States, the Canal Zone,
Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia."
[p. 16]
l.ln(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 105 (1959)
l.ln(3)(a) Sept. 11: Passed Senate, pp. 19042-19046
AMENDMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY ACT
OF 1954 WITH RESPECT TO COOPERA-
TION WITH STATES
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair lays before the Senate the un-
finished business, S. 2568.
The Senate resumed the considera-
tion of the bill (S. 2568) to amend the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, with respect to cooperation
with States.
Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, S.
2568, as amended, is recommended
unanimously by the Joint Committee
on Atomic Energy, and is a bill to
amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
615
as amended, with respect to coopera-
tion with States.
This bill was originally requested by
the AEC, and the Joint Committee then
held extensive public hearings from
May 19 through 22, 1959, and received
testimony from representatives of Fed-
eral agencies, State agencies, scientific
and health experts, and other inter-
ested groups. This bill is supported by
all of the major State organizations,
including the Council of State Govern-
ments, and Governors' Conference, the
National Association of Attorneys
General, and the Southern Regional
Advisory Council on Nuclear Energy,
and representatives of various indi-
vidual States. After the hearings, the
Joint Committee made certain pro-
posed revisions to the bill and then re-
ceived comments from the AEC on this
bill, S. 2568, on August 15, 1959. The
hearings have now been published and
are available to Members of Congress
and the public under the title of "Fed-
eral-State Relationships in the Atomic
Energy Field," consisting of 504 pages.
I believe it is important that Con-
gress enact this amendment to the
Atomic Energy Act this year in order
to clarify the respective responsibilities
of the Federal Government, on one
hand, and the State and local govern-
ments, on the other, with respect to
regulation of the radioactive materials
defined in the Atomic Energy Act. At
the present time, the Federal Govern-
ment has exclusive responsibility for
the licensing and basic regulation of
these materials, although States may
require registration and inspection.
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is
silent as to the regulatory role of the
States; and if this silence is allowed to
continue, I believe that there will be
confusion and possible conflict between
Federal and State regulations and un-
certainty on the part of industry and
possible jeopardy to the public health
and safety. In order to clarify this
situation and indicate clearly which
materials and activities should be the
responsibility of the Federal Govern-
ment and which materials—less dan-
[p. 19042]
gerous and hazardous—might be grad-
ually turned over to the States, this bill
would be helpful this year. In addi-
tion, since it will take the AEC a matter
of 6 months or more to promulgate reg-
ulations under this legislation and to
enter into discussions with certain
States, it would be advisable to pass
this bill now rather than postpone it
until the next session of Congress.
The bill authorizes the Commission
to enter into agreements with State
Governors providing for discontinu-
ance of certain of the Commission's
regulatory authority, after proper
certification by the Governor and find-
ings by the Commission that the State
program is adequate. The withdrawal
by the Commission and the correspond-
ing assumption of responsibility by
States, will be on a State-by-State
basis, beginning with those States most
advanced in the atomic energy field and
eager to assume their responsibilities.
The Joint Committee believed that
this State-by-state approach was wise
and appropriate, and it stated as fol-
lows on page 8 of the committee report:
A few States have indicated they will be ready
in the near futuie to begin discussions leading:
to an agreement to assume legulatory respon-
sibility for such materials. Others will not be
ieady without moie effort, mole assistance, and
more experience for seveial, or perhaps many,
years. The bill does not authoiize a wholesale
i ehnquishment or abdication by the Commission
of its regulatory responsibilities but only a
gradual, carefully considered turnover, on a
State-by-state basis, as individual States may
become qualified.
This bill draws a line between the
types of materials where continued ex-
clusive Federal regulation and licens-
ing is deemed necessary—such as in
licensing of reactors, and disposal of
radioactive wastes into the ocean—and
those other materials and activities
which are considered less hazardous
and capable of State regulation, such
as radioisotopes. Here again the com-
mittee report states at page 8, as
follows:
-------
616
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
Thus a line is drawn between types of ac-
tivities deemed appropriate for regulation by
individual States at this time, and other activ-
ities where continued AEC regulation is
necessary.
This bill provides and is intended
to encourage additional programs of
assistance and encouragement to
State and local governments in order
that they may assume and carry out
these responsibilities. Such assistance
should be available not only to State of-
ficials, but also to local and municipal
officials. The public health will thus be
better protected because, in the words
of the Joint Committee report, "most
citizens look to their local health officers
for advice and protection against
hazardous materials used in the
community."
The Joint Committee amended this
bill in certain respects to emphasize
the importance of uniformity of stand-
ards at all levels of government and
to establish by statute a Federal Radia-
tion Council. The Director of the Bu-
reau of the Budget and the Secretary
of the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare originally objected
to the provisions concerning this Coun-
cil. However, after further revisions,
the Joint Committee was informed that
the present provisions in the bill meet
with no objections from the Director
of the Bureau of the Budget or the
Secretary of the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare.
The bill as amended has several ad-
vantages over the present Executive
order with respect to the Council.
First it adds the Secretary of Labor
to the Council, because of the active
interest of that Department in em-
ployee radiation problems. Second,
it authorizes the members of the Coun-
cil to designate officials to act in their
stead, thereby permitting busy Cabinet
members to make qualified technical
officials responsible members of the
Council. Third, it authorizes the Pres-
ident to appoint additional members
of the Council and the committee report
points out that such members could
represent the public and State and
local agencies. I believe it is of great
importance that some qualified repre-
sentatives of the lay public actively
participate on this Council.
There are three minor matters in
connection with the printing of this bill
and report which I would like to draw
to the attention of the Senate. First,
on page 3, line 25, the last sentence be-
ginning with the word "Notwithstand-
ing" should be printed flush with the
margin rather than as a part of clause
(4). Without objection, it is requested
that if this bill be passed, this printing
correction be made at the time of the
printing of the public law. Second,
there are two errors in the committee
report which I would like to mention to
all Senators. On page 4, in the fifth
full paragraph, second sentence, the
word "not" should be inserted so that
the sentence reads as follows:
It does not modify the basic functions of
the Council, but increases its membership from
four to five members, including the Secretary
of Labor, and provides that the Council shall
consult qualified scientists and experts in radia-
tion matters.
Also on page 11 in the last para-
graph on the page, the first two sen-
tences should be modified and consoli-
dated into one sentence to read as
follows:
Subsection (h) establishes a Federal Radia-
tion Council consisting of five members, and
such other members as shall be appointed by
the President.
These errors in the committee report
are being corrected by an errata sheet,
and have been corrected in the corre-
sponding House report, but I wanted
to mention them to all Senators at this
time.
Mr. President, in summary, this bill
has been requested by the AEC, is sup-
ported by the administration, has been
recommended unanimously by the Joint
Committee after full and complete pub-
lic hearings, and will serve a useful
purpose in clarifying the act and en-
couraging assumption of responsibility
by States in this field. I hope the Sen-
ate will pass this bill, in the form rec-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
617
ommended by the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the amendments, six in num-
ber, may be approved en bloc.
[p. 19043]
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
have discussed certain aspects of this
very important proposed legislation
with the distinguished Senator from
New Mexico, the chairman of the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy. There
are some questions which I have pre-
pared, questions, by the way, which I
have discussed in part with the chair-
man of the committee, and I should
like to ask for his indulgence and co-
operation while I propound these ques-
tions and seek his answers.
As I understand, first, there is ap-
parently nothing in the bill which vests
authority in any specific agency for
the establishment of radiation stand-
ards. There is likewise nothing in the
President's Executive order which de-
termines who is the responsible agent
or which is the responsible agency in
the matter of the establishment of
radiation standards. At the present
time the standards are recommended
by a private nongovernmental group
known as the National Committee on
Radiation Protection and Measure-
ment.
The pending bill, or the bill intro-
duced by the Senator from Alabama
[Mr. HILL], or some bill should vest
responsibility in some agency for the
establishment of standards.
During the past week at the first
meeting of the Federal Radiation Coun-
cil, it decided to continue to rely for
standards on the private nongovern-
mental group known as the National
Committee on Radiation Protection and
Measurement.
[p. 19044]
My questions of the chairman of the
Joint Committee are as follows:
Under the Executive order and the
bill, in what ways are the responsi-
bilities of the Atomic Energy Com-
mission changed and in what ways
are the responsibilities of the Depart-
ment of Health, Education and Welfare
changed?
Mr. ANDERSON. The responsibili-
ties of the AEC are not changed under
this bill until such time as the Commis-
sion may enter into an agreement with
the Governor of a State, and at that
time certain responsibilities now exer-
cised by the Commission would be
turned over from the Commission to
qualified State governments, on a State
by State basis.
Responsibilities of the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare are
not changed by this bill except that the
Secretary of that Department is
designated as a member of the Federal
Radiation Council- The Council shall
advise the President with respect to ra-
diation matters, directly or indirectly
affecting health, including guidance by
the President for all Federal agencies
in the formulation of radiation stand-
ards and the establishment and execu-
tion of programs for cooperation with
States. Therefore, the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare will
have an active role in the formulation
of standards and policies by the Coun-
cil and in coordinating responsibilities
at the Federal level and at the State
level.
Mr. HUMPHREY. While the Coun-
cil, then, will not establish Federal
radiation standards immediately, the
Council will advise the President on
these matters and will, through the
cooperation of the Atomic Energy Com-
mission and the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, lay the
groundwork for the establishment of
such standards. Is that correct?
Mr. ANDERSON. The Senator is
correct. The President will establish
policies, but the situation laid down by
the Senator is correct.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Does the Execu-
tive order or the bill deal with the ques-
tion as to what agency, or group, or
person is responsible for setting radia-
-------
618
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
tion standards?
Mr. ANDERSON. The bill provides
that the Council shall advise the Presi-
dent with respect to radiation matters,
directly or indirectly affecting health,
including guidance by the President
for all Federal agencies in the formu-
lation of radiation standards. Under
the bill, as well as under the Executive
order, the President shall have the final
responsibility for establishing policies
with respect to radiation standards.
The President will receive his recom-
mendations from the Council, which in
turn, will receive advice from qualified
technical experts.
Mr. HUMPHREY. May I preface
my third question by a comment which
should have been made prior to ques-
tion No. 1. It is a fact, is it not, that
the bill as now reported and as amended
in no way appears to conflict with the
Executive order of the President, which
also establishes a Radiation Council?
Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. It is in
somewhat different language. It per-
mits the addition of people from the
outside, but it does not conflict with the
original establishment of the Council
by the President, and has been care-
fully cleared with the Bureau of the
Budget and with the various agencies
involved.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I thought it was
important to get that clarified since
there has been a recent Executive order
on the matter.
Question No. 3: Under the bill or the
Executive order is there any way in
which the public will be guaranteed
continuous and objective information
on levels of fallout and other poten-
tial radiation hazards?
Mr. ANDERSON. I say to the able
Senator that this is an extremely im-
portant question because it is essential
that the public get the information. As
chairman of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy, I received a letter
dated August ,21, 1959, from Maurice
H. Stans, Director of the Bureau of
the Budget, concerning the functions
of the Council. This letter states that
the President has approved certain
recommendations, including No. 3, as
follows:
The Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare shall 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 such as * * * fallout, so that
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare
may advise the President and the general public.
Thus it would appear that under the
Executive order the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare—
which is separate, of course, from AEC
—will have primary responsibility for
advising the general public as to the
radiation levels of the fallout.
I might add, in line with the ques-
tion of the able Senator from Minne-
sota, that the Joint Committee has just
published a summary analysis of its
hearings on "Fallout From Nuclear
Weapons Tests," in which it pledges
also that the Joint Committee will fol-
low this matter as vigorously as it can
in order to see that this material gets
into the hands of the general public.
The hearings, which lasted several
days, coupled with the exhibits and the
comments which were supplied, and
other hearings by the Joint Committee
on radiation matters, involved thou-
sands of pages of text. Along with re-
ports such as this, these hearings are
all being released in an effort to keep
the general public informed to the
greatest extent possible.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I am sure the
Senator will agree with me that it is
important there be a continuous and
objective flow of information on this
important subject of the effects of ra-
diation and the degree of fallout. I
know that the Joint Committee has em-
phasized these effects at its recent
hearings; and, as I understand, not
only will the Joint Committee continue
its activities, and not only will the AEC
continue to study the problem, but the
responsibility concerning the technical
and scientific aspects of health, educa-
tion, and welfare will be that of the De-
partment of Health, Education, and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
619
Welfare, which will also have the re-
sponsibility of advising the President
and the general public on the radiation
levels of fallout.
Mr. ANDERSON. The Senator is
completely correct. That feature is
what I think is the best part about it.
Someone may say the AEC would not
do the work completely, and that the
Joint Committee will not fully inform
the Congress as it is supposed to do,
but here is a third agency which is sup-
posed to report to the public, and I can
assure the Senator through the work
of these three agencies I am confident
the public will receive all proper in-
formation on it.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I imagine when
we say, "H.E.W.," the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, we
are referring in fact to the U.S. Pub-
lic Health Service office of the Depart-
ment, which would have primary
responsibility in this field.
Mr. ANDERSON. Yes; but I would
not want to limit it, because there has
been a great deal of work by the Food
and Drug Administration, which has a
responsibility with reference to foods,
particularly. There is also statistical
work which must constantly be done.
It may be done outside the Public
Health Service. The overall responsi-
bility of the Department is well estab-
lished, and I think it will render a very
complete service.
Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator
knows that the whole problem of radia-
tion hazards affects the food supply,
and therefore is of interest to agricul-
ture as a whole. As I understand,
there is nothing exclusive, under the
Executive order, which, for example,
would prevent information on the radi-
ation problem from reaching the agri-
cultural areas through the established
services of the land-grant colleges and
the agricultural schools.
Mr. ANDERSON. That is correct.
In addition, it should be pointed out
that the bill permits the President to
add to the Council he now has such per-
sons as he may deem important. He
could, if he wished, appoint the Secre-
tary of Agriculture as a member for
the particular purpose of having him
survey the situation with respect to
food. We have had some problems in
connection with milk. We have had
some problems in connection with radi-
oactive grain. Any time the President
wishes to dip into another department
and select a particular person, or his
nominee from that department, the bill
permits him to do so.
Mr. HUMPHREY. The Senator
speaks of a representative of the de-
partment "or his nominee." I am sure
the Senator contemplates someone of
professional stature who could make a
genuine contribution in this very im-
portant technical field.
Mr. ANDERSON. Yes. For exam-
ple, the Secretary of Agriculture might
not have special knowledge of the work-
ings of the various departments under
him in a particular field. He might
have a specialist in that particular
field. At one time I had a problem in
connection with sugar, and I found in
the Department of Agriculture a spe-
cialist who had devoted his entire life-
[p. 19045]
time to a study of certain plant diseases
with reference to sugar. He would
have been a more valuable member of
the council than the then Secretary,
and he would have been the nominee for
that purpose.
If on the other hand, the problem re-
lated to a particular type of grain, he
might wish to reach over to the Grain
Branch for an expert in that area, or
he might wish to turn to the Plant Pa-
thology Section and find an expert, who
would be his nominee for a specific
time, to consider a specific question.
Mr. HUMPHREY. My fourth ques-
tion is: Who is responsible for doing
research and determining standards on
the total ing-estion of radioactive ma-
terial into the human body?
Mr. ANDERSON. Both the AEC
and the Public Health Service will con-
tinue their research efforts into the na-
-------
620
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
ture of fallout and other radiation
hazards and its effect on man. To date,
the AEC has been doing most of this re-
search work, and last year the Division
of Biology and Medicine of the AEC
spent $18,500,000 supporting research
work in this field. The Public Health
Service is building up its capacity and
the recent Executive order provides
that the Public Health Service should
"intensify its efforts."
As for the determination of stand-
ards, the President will have final re-
sponsibility for providing guidance to
the agencies for the formulation of
standards. The agencies would then
establish operating standards under
their respective statutory authorities
following the guidance given by the
President.
Mr. HUMPHREY. By the way, I
hope the emphasis in the Executive or-
der on the intensification of efforts by
the Public Health Service will be fol-
lowed. I hope this is not mere oratory,
but is an actual directive and a policy
statement; which will be followed by re-
quests in the budget, as well as empha-
sis on the research establishments of
the Public Health Service.
Mr. ANDERSON. I reassure the
Senator from Minnesota by pointing
out that additional money has already
been appropriated for this very special
work, and that there is every evidence
on the part of the Public Health Serv-
ice that it intends to go ahead; and
I am very confident that it will go
ahead.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I thank the Sen-
ator. This information should be reas-
suring to the American people. There
is great concern on the part of the
public as to what is done. We are
bringing out today the things that have
been done, and the things that are
contemplated.
My next question is: Since the Ex-
ecutive order designates the Secretary
of the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare as Chairman of the
Radiation Council to advise the Presi-
dent, does this mean that the President
will designate the standards?
Mr. ANDERSON. As I stated ear-
lier, the President could designate the
standards, or more probably the poli-
cies for the formulation of standards.
Presumably, the Council will, with the
best possible technical advice, adopt
basic standards, and the various
agencies will then adopt operating
standards consistent with the basic
standards.
Mr. HUMPHREY. My next ques-
tion is: Does the bill in any way lessen
the need for legislation along the lines
stated in the bill introduced by the
Senator from Alabama [Mr. HILL],
S. 1228?
Mr. ANDERSON. I am very happy
to say to the Senator from Minnesota
that it does not. This bill has been
redrafted, as stated in the committee
report, to make certain that it applies
only to materials now regulated by the
AEC. It is not intended to prejudice
in any way the bill introduced by the
Senator from Alabama [Mr. HILL],
S. 1228; and if at a later date Congress
should decide to enact the policies or
provisions of Senator HILL'S bill, that
would be within the power of Congress
at that time.
Mr. HUMPHREY. In other words,
the bill introduced by the Senator from
Alabama [Mr. HILL], if acted upon,
would be a corollary or a supplemen-
tary bill; it would not in any way be
contradictory?
Mr. ANDERSON. It would be a cor-
ollary, but it would also more clearly
define where authority is and probably
might set aside portions of existing law
as those functions are taken over.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I thank the
Chairman for his cooperation, and my
final question is: What is the role of the
Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare and the Atomic Energy Com-
mission in terms of controlling radia-
tion hazards in the States?
Mr. ANDERSON. It is intended
that the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare, including the Public
Health Service, intensify its radiologi-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
621
cal health efforts, including the train-
ing of State health officers. The
Commission now regulates certain
radiation hazards in the States, but as
the States become qualified, it is in-
tended that the control of hazards from
certain materials will be turned over to
State officers. The White House press
release accompanying the Executive or-
der stated that upon the enactment of
this legislation, the Atomic Energy
Commission would have the principal
Federal responsibility for preparing
the States for the proposed transfer of
certain regulatory responsibilities from
the Commission to the States. There-
fore, the Public Health Service should
continue to train State and local health
officers, and the Atomic Energy Com-
mission will be gradually turning over
certain responsibilities to those State
health and other officers as they become
qualified.
Mr. HUMPHREY. I thank the Sen-
ator from New Mexico. I hope the col-
loquy has been helpful in terms of
developing a more comprehensive and
detailed legislative history of the bill.
I believe it has. I feel that the new leg-
islation in itself is a very constructive,
forward step. I congratulate the Sena-
tor from New Mexico.
Mr. ANDERSON. The members of
the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
who attended the hearings made sub-
stantial contributions, too. The work
of trying to draft a bill inside the com-
mittee was particularly difficult, be-
cause this is a whole new field. We
very much appreciate the support we
had from the ranking minority mem-
bers of the committee and the House
members.
Representative DURHAM and Repre-
sentative VAN ZANDT were especially
helpful. I desire to compliment, par-
ticularly, the able senior Senator from
Iowa [Mr. HICKENLOOPER] for his con-
tributions in drafting this bill to take
the needed first step in this direction.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill is open to further amendment. If
there be no further amendment to be
proposed, the question is on the en-
grossment and third reading of the bill.
The amendments were ordered to be
engrossed, and the bill to be read a
third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall it pass?
Mr. HICKENLOOPER. Mr. Presi-
dent, I think the bill has resolved itself
into a very excellent bill on the very
difficult question of Federal-State rela-
tionship in connection with nuclear
activities. A very delicate ground
exists between the jurisdiction of the
Federal Government and the sovereign
jurisdiction of the States in many
fields. This one is no exception.
This matter was considered and dis-
cussed by the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy at considerable length,
and I believe the problem has been re-
solved in the most satisfactory way
which is open to us at present. I think
the bill clarifies the responsibilities. I
think it is an essential bill.
Certainly the Senator from New
Mexico [Mr. ANDERSON], while he was
very complimentary to me just a mo-
ment ago about my contribution, has
himself been the very active and mov-
ing force in the development and prose-
cution of the legislation to this point.
He has devoted a great deal of time
and thought toward bringing this situ-
ation to the point of cooperation in a
statute which I think is a substantial
step forward in the development and
handling of atomic energy in the
United States.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill having been read the third time, the
question is, Shall it pass?
The bill (S. 2568) was passed.
[p. 19046]
-------
622
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
l.ln(3) (b) Sept. 11: Passed House, pp. 19169-19170
COOPERATION WITH STATES, ATOMIC
ENERGY COMMISSION
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent for the immediate
consideration of the bill (S. 2568) to
amend the Atomic Energy Act, as
amended, with respect to cooperation
with States.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is
there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Illinois?
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, will the gentleman
explain this bill?
Mr. PRICE. This is a bill reported
unanimously from the Joint Committee
on Atomic Energy which would amend
the Atomic Energy Act with regard to
setting up procedures under which
there would be greater participation at
the State and local level.
Lengthy hearings were held on this
bill. It has been supported by the
principal State organizations, includ-
ing the Council of State Governments,
the Governors Conference, the Na-
tional Association of Attorneys Gen-
eral, and the Southern Governors
Conference.
The bill represents months of effort
to bring this program a little closer to
the States and to have greater partici-
pation at the State level.
Mr. GROSS. Does this provide for
an increase in Federal spending?
Mr. PRICE. No, it does not.
Mr. GROSS. Nor an increase in
personnel?
Mr. PRICE. No.
Mr. GROSS. It does not open the
door to more spending by the States or
the setting up of a program that will
eventually call for more spending on
the part of the Federal Government?
Mr. PRICE. I do not see how it
could open the door to any large-scale
spending.
Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania.
Mr. PRICE. Permit me to say to the
gentleman from Iowa, who mentioned
additional personnel, that it could
eventually involve some expenditure
for training and inspection of person-
nel who would work with and for State
and local governments as they set up
their programs, but it would be a neg-
ligible amount.
Mr. VAN ZANDT. All we are try-
ing to do here is to authorize the AEG
to prepare a set of regulations that will
assist the several States and communi-
ties in administering their affairs in
the peaceful use of the atom.
There might be some expenses in
training personnel and in administer-
ing such a program, but it would be
minute, compared to the AEG budget
as a whole.
Mr. PRICE. Yes, this is the type
of legislation sought by some State
governments.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, further
reserving the right to object, will this
provide any program comparable with
civil defense attempts to expand in mu-
nicipalities and other local subdivisions
of government?
Mr. PRICE. No; it would not. The
most you could anticipate would be in-
spectors or licensing personnel or peo-
ple who might be called upon to assist
the State government in training
inspectors.
Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Speaker,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield.
Mr. VAN ZANDT. All this would
do is this: It would permit the Federal
Government to eventually withdraw
from the area where the States and lo-
cal communities would have jurisdic-
tion over certain types of materials
and give them the right of administer-
ing their affairs. It applies principally
to the use of radioactive isotopes.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I with-
draw my reservation of objection.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
623
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the present consideration of the Sen-
ate bill?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:
* * * * *
[p. 19169]
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, S. 2568 is
a bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954 by adding a new section 274 to
that act with respect to cooperation
with States. It is recommended unani-
mously by the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy, with certain amend-
ments, and was passed by the Senate
on September 11, 1959.
After receiving a proposed bill from
the AEC, the Joint Committee held ex-
tensive public hearings and received
many valuable comments. The bill is
supported by the principal State or-
ganizations, including the Council of
State Governments, the Governors'
conference, the National Association
of Attorneys General, and the southern
Governors' conference. In addition,
representatives of individual States
testified in support of the bill. The
Atomic Energy Act is now silent as to
the role of State governments, and this
bill is needed to clarify the situation
because some confusion is beginning to
develop.
# * * * *
[p. 19070]
Under this legislation, the Commis-
sion could gradually turn over to
qualified State governments the respon-
sibility for regulation and supervision
of some, but not all, activities. In the
case of isotopes, eight States—New
York, California, Pennsylvania, Illi-
nois, Texas, Ohio, New Jersey, and
Minnesota—have 55 percent of the
AEC licenses, and transfer to the State
government could ease the AEC licens-
ing load. The licensing- and regulation
of more hazardous types of activities
—such as nuclear reactors—would re-
main the exclusive responsibility of the
AEC.
The bill provides for programs of
training and assistance in order to help
State and local employees prepare to
assume these contemplated new respon-
sibilities. I would like to emphasize
that local and municipal government
employees are to receive the benefits
of this AEC assistance as well as
State employees.
In order to avoid overlapping, con-
flicting, or duplicating standards, the
Joint Committee tightened up subsec-
tion g. of the bill relating to standards
and provided that they should be com-
patible with the AEC standards. In
most cases when a State assumes the
responsibility, it is hoped that the State
will adopt the AEC standards so that
their standards will be identical.
The bill also establishes a Federal
Radiation Council consisting of five
members, and such other members as
shall be appointed by the President.
This Council shall receive the advice
of technical experts, and shall then
advise the President. The President
will then provide guidance to all Fed-
eral agencies in the formulation of
radiation standards in order to encour-
age uniformity of standards at the
Federal level, and thus subsequently at
the State level.
Insofar as local governments and
municipalities are concerned, the bill
provides in subsection i that the Com-
mission is authorized to provide train-
ing and assistance to such groups as
well as to State governments. Local
and municipal officials are also to be
encouraged to participate in inspection
and to work closely with AEC officials.
The promulgation of standards and li-
censing will be done on a statewide
basis, but the bill intends that local and
municipal officials also will participate
in carrying out the purposes of this bill.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, the Joint
Committee has considered this bill
carefully, made certain revisions, and
then reported out the bill unanimously.
It has been passed by the Senate, and I
urge all Members of the House to vote
for S. 2568, in the form recommended
-------
624
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
by the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy.
Mr. VAN ZANDT. Mr. Speaker, I
rise in support of H.R. 8755 (S. 2568),
as recommended by the Joint Commit-
tee on Atomic Energy, to amend the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, with re-
spect to cooperation with States.
This bill contains the essential provi-
sions requested by the AEC and is sup-
ported by the administration. During
the lengthy hearings held by the Joint
Committee on this subject, representa-
tives from many States testified in
favor of the bill, and also the following
organizations: Council of State Gov-
ernments, National Association of At-
torneys General, the Governors Con-
ference and the Joint Federal-State
Action Committee, and the Southern
Governors Conference.
Since the hearings, the American
Bar Association has approved a report
in favor of the principles of this bill.
In addition, we have received state-
ments from the States of New York,
California, and other States in support
of the bill.
At the present time, the Atomic En-
ergy Act requires the Federal Govern-
ment to license and regulate radiation
hazards from the materials denned in
the Atomic Energy Act, namely, by-
product, source, and special nuclear
materials. The States have many laws
protecting the health and safety of
their citizens from conventional haz-
ards, and some States also have laws
requiring registration of these mate-
rials, or permitting inspection and
adoption of standards concerning these
materials. But the basic licensing and
regulations for radiation hazards is
done by the Federal Government. This
bill would permit the States, on a grad-
ual basis, to assume responsibility for
regulation of these materials, and the
Commission to withdraw its authority
under agreement with the Governor of
a State.
The Joint Committee has gone into
this subject thoroughly, as indicated
by the committee report. The Joint
Committee considers the approach of
the bill wise and appropriate in sev-
eral respects, and I would like to quote
in part from the report of the Joint
Committee at page 8:
2. The approach of the bill is considered ap-
propriate, in the opinion of the Joint Com-
mittee, for several reasons:
(a) The approach is on a State-by-State
basis. It authorizes the Commission to enter
into agreements with Governors of individual
States, aftei proper certifications and findings
by both the Goveinor and the Commission as
to the adequacy of the State's program. A few
States have indicated they will be ready in the
near future to begin discussions leading to an
agreement to assume regulatory responsibility
for such materials. Others will not be ready
without more effort, more assistance, and more
experience for several, or perhaps many years.
The bill does not authorize a wholesale re-
hnquishment or abdication by the Commission
of its regulatory responsibilities but only a
gradual, carefully considered turnover, on a
State-by-state basis, as individual States may
become qualified.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, this bill
would help the States assume independ-
ent regulatory jurisdiction in areas
which are now regulated exclusively by
the Federal Government under the pro-
visions of the Atomic Energy Act. It
would assist the States to prepare
themselves for assuming such respon-
sibility by increased training and pro-
grams of assistance for the States. As
pointed out in the Joint Committee re-
port, this would increase the protection
of the public health and safety "because
most citizens look to their local health
officers for advice and protection
against hazardous materials used in
the community"—page 9 of the com-
mittee report.
This bill would allow States and
local health officers, as they become
qualified, to assume regulatory respon-
sibility over materials which until now
have been the responsibility of the AEC
under the Atomic Energy Act.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to ap-
prove H.R. 8755 in the form recom-
mended by the Joint Committee.
[p. 19071]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 625
l.lo AMENDMENT TO ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954,
AS AMENDED
September 6,1961, P.L. 87-206, §§13,15, 75 Stat. 478
SEC. 13. Subsections 161 t, u., and v. of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended, are hereby redesignated respectively as sub-
sections 161 s., t., and u.
[p. 478]
SEC. 15. Subsection d. of section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new sentence: "A contractor with whom an agreement
of indemnification has been executed and who is engaged in ac-
tivities connected with the underground detonation of a nuclear
explosive device shall be liable, to the extent so indemnified under
this section, for injuries or damage sustained as a result of such
detonation in the same manner and to the same extent as would a
private person acting as principal, and no immunity or defense
founded in the Federal, State, or municipal character of the con-
tractor or of the work to be performed under the contract shall be
effective to bar such liability."
[p. 479]
l.lo(l) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
H.R. REP. No. 963, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961)
AMENDMENTS TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACH OF 1954
AS AMENDED, AND THE EURATOM COOPERATION
ACT OF 1958
AUGUST 16, 1961.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. HOLIFIELD, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 8599]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered H.R.
8599, to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and
-------
626 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
the Euratom Cooperation Act of 1958, report favorably thereon,
with an amendment, and recommend that the bill do pass.
The amendment to the bill adopted by the Joint Committee is as
follows:
On page 3, line 8, after the word "at" insert the word "the."
This amendment adopted by the Joint Committee is a technical
amendment.
SUMMARY OF BILL
This bill, as recommended by the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy, makes miscellaneous amendments to existing atomic en-
ergy legislation. Section 1 retrocedes jurisdiction over the Liver-
more site to the State of California. Sections 2 through 17 of the
bill amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Sections
18 through 20 amend the Euratom Cooperation Act of 1958.
Section 1 of the bill would retrocede to the State of California
the exclusive jurisdiction which the United States presently holds
over certain portions of the Atomic Energy Commission's Liver-
more site.
Section 2 of the bill is a technical amendment, and amends the
definition of "agreement for cooperation" in subsection 11 b. of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, in order to conform
that section to the amendment of section 91 made by Public Law
85-479 in 1958.
[p. 1]
Section 3 of the bill amends subsection 11 u. of the Atomic En-
ergy Act of 1954, as amended, to exclude from Atomic Energy
Commission indemnity coverage, under section 170 of the act, any
liability for damage to property which is at the site of, and used
in connection with, a licensed activity.
Section 4 of the bill amends section 54 of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended, to authorize the transfer of 3 kilograms of
plutonium and 500 grams of uranium 233 to the International
Atomic Energy Agency.
Section 5 of the bill is a technical amendment to permit individ-
uals who are granted access to restricted data under the provisions
of section 6 of this bill to exchange restricted data with Depart-
ment of Defense personnel under the provisions of section 143 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
Section 6 of the bill provides that the Commission may grant
access to restricted data to employees of another Government
agency who possess a security clearance granted by that other
agency on the basis of an investigative report which is satisfactory
to the Atomic Energy Commission.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 627
Section 7 of the bill amends the title of section 151 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, from "Military Utilization" to
the more accurate title of "Inventions Relating to Atomic Weapons,
and Filing of Reports."
Section 8 of the bill amends subsection 151 c. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, by deleting certain superfluous
language and by changing the period for filing of reports of in-
ventions from 90 days to 180 days after the inventor first discovers
or has reason to believe that his invention is useful in the produc-
tion or utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy.
Section 9 of the bill adds a new subsection e. to section 151 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to provide express statu-
tory sanction for the Atomic Energy Commission's practice of
treating reports of inventions as confidential business documents.
Section 10 of the bill amends section 152 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, to clarify the language concerning the
Commission's patent rights on inventions made or conceived under
contract, subcontract, or arrangement with the Commission.
Section 11 of the bill amends section 157 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, by adding a new subsection d. which
places a 6-year statute of limitation on suits for patent royalties,
compensation, and awards.
Section 12 of the bill amends section 158 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, to make it discretionary, rather than
mandatory, for a court to require payment of royalties by a li-
censee to the owner of a patent who is found guilty of using that
patent in violation of the antitrust laws.
Section 13 of the bill is a technical amendment to reletter cer-
tain subsections of section 161 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended. These subsections were erroneously designated in
Public Law 85-681.
Section 14 of the bill amends section 167 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, to permit the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion to settle claims up to $5,000 for damages arising out of pro-
grams such as the seismic improvement and plowshare programs.
[p. 2]
This authority is in addition to the Commission's existing author-
ity with respect to the weapons testing program. The Commis-
sion would also have authority to recommend meritorious claims
in excess of $5,000 to the Congress.
Section 15 of the bill amends subsection d. of section 170 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, by adding a new sentence
which has the effect, in specified circumstances, of removing cer-
tain affirmative defenses based upon the relationship between the
-------
628 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
contractor and the Commission or sovereign immunity which may
otherwise be available to a contractor engaged in activities con-
nected with the underground detonation of a nuclear explosive
device.
Section 16 of the bill adds a new section 190 to the Atomic En-
ergy Act of 1954, as amended, to provide that reports of incidents
by licensees, made pursuant to any requirement of the Commission,
shall not be admitted as evidence in a subsequent suit or action for
damages.
Section 17 of the bill amends section 202 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, by extending the period for holding an-
nual hearings on the "Development, Growth, and State of the
Atomic Energy Industry" (202 hearings) from 60 to 90 days fol-
lowing the beginning of each session of Congress.
Section 18 of the bill amends subsection 4(c) of the Euratom
Cooperation Act of 1958 with respect to criteria for computing the
maximum fuel element cost and minimum fuel element life under
the Euratom fuel element guarantee program.
Section 19 of the bill amends section 5 of the Euratom Coopera-
tion Act to authorize the transfer of 8 additional kilograms of
plutonium and 30 kilograms of uranium 233 to Euratom.
Section 20 of the bill amends section 7 of the Euratom Coopera-
tion Act of 1958 to exempt U.S. research and development
contracts from the requirement of disclaimer or indemnity ar-
rangements in favor of the U.S. Government.
A more complete explanation of the provisions of this bill is
contained in the "section-by-section analysis."
BACKGROUND
On April 22, 1961, the Joint Committee received the following
letter from A. R. Luedecke, General Manager of the Atomic
Energy Commission, to Chairman Chet Holifield of the Joint
Committee:
U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION,
April 22, 1961.
HON. CHET HOLIFIELD,
Chairman, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
Congress of the United States.
DEAR MR. HOLIFIELD: By letter dated March 15, 1961, you re-
quested that the Commission submit to you by April 15, 1961, in
one proposed bill, the legislative proposals which the Commission
desires the Joint Committee to consider during this session of
Congress.
We have transmitted today to the Speaker of the House of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 629
Representatives and the President of the Senate, Commission pro-
posals in the form of a draft bill which would amend the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Euratom Cooperation
Act of 1958, in several particulars. The proposed legislation is
attached as appendix A, an analysis of the legislation is attached
as appendix B, and a
[p. 3]
instituted under section 157 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended.
This amendment codifies the 6-year statute of limitations which
the Commission has, in fact, been following under the authority of
section 157 c. (1) (B) and section 157 c. (2) of the Atomic En-
ergy Act, as amended.
Section 12 of the bill amends section 158 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, to make it discretionary rather than
mandatory for a court to require the payment of royalties by a
licensee to the owner of a patent who is found guilty of using that
patent in violation of the antitrust laws.
Section 13 of the bill is a technical amendment to reletter certain
subsections of section 161.
Section 14 amends section 167 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended. Under the existing terms of section 167, the
Commission is authorized to settle claims up to $5,000 for damages
resulting from "any detonation explosion or radiation produced in
the conduct of the Commission's program for testing atomic weap-
ons." This amendment will broaden the Commission's authority
so as to permit the Commission to settle claims up to $5,000 arising
out of the conduct of such programs as the seismic improvement
and plowshare programs, whether the resulting damage be caused
by a nuclear or nonnuclear explosive device. In addition, the
Commission is given new authority to recommend to the Con-
gress meritorious claims in excess of $5,000.
Section 15 of the bill amends subsection d. of section 170 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, by adding a new sentence
which has the effect of removing certain defenses based upon the
relationship between the Commission and the contractor or sover-
eign immunity, wThich may otherwise be available to a contractor
engaged in activities connected with the underground detonation
of a nuclear explosive device. To the extent that such a contractor
is indemnified under the provisions of an agreement of indemnifi-
cation entered into pursuant to the provisions of section 170 d.
he will be liable in the same manner as a private person acting as
principal. Such a contractor, therefore, to the extent so indemni-
fied will not be able to bar liability with defenses grounded upon
-------
630 LEGAL COMPILATION—EADIATION
his agency relationship with the U.S. Government, his sovereign
immunity, or the Federal, State, or municipal character of the
work performed under the contract. This amendment will not re-
duce in any way the indemnity protection provided a contractor
by the indemnity provisions in his contract whether those provi-
sions are based on section 170 d. or other authority.
Section 16 of the bill adds a new section 190 to the Atomic En-
ergy Act of 1954, as amended. Under the terms of this new
section, no report by a licensee of any incident arising out of or in
connection with a licensed activity, which is made pursuant to any
Commission requirement, shall be admitted as evidence in a suit
of action for damages growing out of any matter mentioned in
such report. The purpose of this amendment is to encourage the
free and uninhibited disclosure of the facts surrounding accidents
at licensed facilities. Such report may not be used to prove the
truth of the facts asserted in the report, but may be used for other
purposes in a civil action.
Section 17 of the bill amends section 202 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, by extending the period for holding an-
nual hearings on the "Development, Growth, and State of the
Atomic
[p. 13]
"SEC. 161. GENERAL PROVISIONS.—In the performance of its
functions the Commission is authorized to—
* * * * * * *
["t.] "s. establish a plan for a succession of authority which
will assure the continuity of direction of the Commission's
operations in the event of a national disaster due to enemy
activity. * * *
["u.] "t. enter into contracts for the processing, fabricating,
separating, or refining in facilities owned by the Commission
of source, byproduct or other material, or special nuclear ma-
terial, in accordance with and within the period of an agree-
ment for cooperation while comparable services are available
to persons licensed under section 103 or 104; * * *
["v.J "u. (1) enter into contracts for such periods of time
as the Commission may deem necessary or desirable, but not
to exceed five years from the date of execution of the contract,
for the purchase or acquisition of reactor services or services
related to or required by the operation of reactors; * * *
[p. 20]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 631
"SEC. 170. INDEMNIFICATION AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.—
*******
"d. In addition to any other authority the Commission may have,
the Commission is authorized until August 1, 1967, to enter into
agreements of indemnification with its contractors for the con-
struction or operation of production or utilization facilities or
other activities under contracts for the benefit of the United States
involving activities under the risk of public liability for a substan-
tial nuclear incident. In such agreements of indemnification the
Commission may require its contractor to provide and maintain
financial protection of such a type and in such amounts as the
Commission shall determine to be appropriate to cover public li-
ability arising out of or in connection with the contractual activity,
and shall indemnify the persons indemnified against such claims
above the amount of the financial protection required, in the
amount of $500,000,000 including the reasonable costs of investi-
gating and settling claims and defending suits for damage in the
aggregate for all persons indemnified in connection with such con-
tract and for each nuclear incident. The provisions of this sub-
section may be applicable to lump sum as well as cost type contracts
and to contracts and projects financed in whole or in part by the
Commission. A contractor with whom an agreement of indemni-
fication has been executed and who is engaged in activities con-
nected with the underground detonation of a nuclear explosive
device shall be liable, to the extent so indemnified under this sec-
tion, for injuries or damage sustained as a result of such detonation
in the same manner arid to the same extent as would, a private
person acting as principal, and to immunity or defense founded in
the Federal, State, or municipal character of the contractor or of
the work to be performed under the contract shall be effective to
bar such liability."
[p. 21]
-------
632 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
l.lo(2) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
S. REP. No. 746, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961)
AMENDMENTS TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954 AS
AMENDED, AND THE EURATOM COOPERATION ACT
OF 1958
AUGUST 16, 1961.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. PASTORE, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 2391]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered S.
2391, to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and
the Euratom Cooperation Act of 1958, report favorably thereon,
with an amendment, and recommend that the bill do pass.
The amendment to the bill adopted by the Joint Committee is
as follows:
On page 10, line 24, strike the word "of" and insert in lieu there-
of the word "to."
This amendment adopted by the Joint Committee is a technical
amendment.
SUMMARY OF BILL
This bill, as recommended by the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy, makes miscellaneous amendments to existing atomic en-
ergy legislation. Section 1 retrocedes jurisdiction over the Liver-
more site to the State of California. Sections 2 through 17 of the
bill amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. Sections
18 through 20 amend the Euratom Cooperation Act of 1958.
Section 1 of the bill would retrocede to the State of California
the exclusive jurisdiction which the United States presently holds
over certain portions of the Atomic Energy Commission's Liver-
more site.
Section 2 of the bill is a technical amendment, and amends the
definition of "agreement for cooperation" in subsection 11 b. of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, in order to conform that
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 633
section to the amendment of section 91 made by Public Law 85-479
in 1958.
[p. 1]
l.lo(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 107 (1961)
l.lo(3)(a) Aug. 22: Passed House, p. 16611
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lo(3)(b) Aug. 24: Passed Senate, p. 16957
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lp TO AMEND THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930, AND CERTAIN
RELATED LAWS
May 24,1962, P.L. 87-456, Title HI §§303(c), 76 Stat. 78
SEC. 303.
*##*** *
(c) The following provisions are hereby repealed: Act of Jan-
uary 9, 1883 (ch. 17, 22 Stat. 402; 19 U.S.C. 193); Act of May 18,
1896 (ch. 195, 29 Stat. 122; 19 U.S.C. 194); Act of March 3, 1899
(ch. 454, 30 Stat. 1372; 19 U.S.C. 195); section 1, Act of August
27, 1949 (ch. 517, 63 Stat. 666; 19 U.S.C. 196a); section 11, Act of
June 16, 1951 (ch. 141, 65 Stat. 75; 19 U.S.C. 1367); section 2951,
Revised Statutes (19 U.S.C. 420); section 206(b), Act of May 28,
1956 (ch. 327, 70 Stat. 200; 7 U.S.C. 1856); Act of August 10, 1956
(ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 137; 10 U.S.C. 2383); and section 161(1), Act
of August 30, 1954 (ch. 1073, 68 Stat. 950; 42 U.S.C. 2201(1)).
[p- 78]
-------
634 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
l.lp(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
H.R. REP. No. 1415, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962)
TARIFF CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1962
MARCH 10, 1962.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. MILLS, from the Committee on Ways and Means, submitted the
following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 10607]
The Committee on Ways and Means, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 10607) to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 and certain
related laws to provide for the restatement of the tariff classifica-
tion provisions, and for other purposes, having considered the
same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recom-
mend that the bill do pass.
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of H.R. 10607 is to provide for the adoption and
implementation of revised tariff schedules proposed pursuant to
law by the U.S. Tariff Commission and to make certain amend-
ments in existing law necessitated by the adoption of such revised
schedules.
[p. 1]
*******
Section 303 of the bill provides for other amendments and re-
peals, none of which involves a change of substance.
*******
[p. 12]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 635
l.lp(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
S. REP. No. 1317, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962)
TARIFF CLASSIFICATION ACT OF 1962
APRIL 2, 1962.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. BYRD of Virginia, from the Committee on Finance, submitted
the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 10607]
The Committee on Finance, to whom was referred the bill (H.R.
10607) to amend the Tariff Act of 1930 and certain related laws to
provide for the restatement of the tariff classification provisions,
and for other purposes, having considered the same, report favor-
ably thereon without amendment, and recommend that the bill do
pass.
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of H.R. 10607 is to provide for the adoption and
implementation of revised tariff schedules and to make certain
amendments in existing law necessitated by the adoption of such
revised schedules.
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
[P- 1]
l.lp(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 108 (1962)
l.lp(3)(a) March 14: Passed House, p. 4067
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lp(3) (b) April 17: Amended and passed Senate, p. 6794
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
-------
636 LEGAL COMPILATION-—RADIATION
l.lp(3)(c) May 9: House concurs with Senate Amendment, p. 8010
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lq TO AMEND THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954,
AS AMENDED
August 29,1962, P.L. 87-615, §§6,7,9,12,76 Stat. 410
SEC. 6. Subsection 170d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is
amended by adding before the period at the end of the second sen-
tence thereof the following proviso: ": Provided, That in the case
of nuclear incidents occurring outside the United States, the
amount of the indemnity provided by the Commission shall not
exceed $100,000,000."
SEC. 7. Subsection 170e. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is
amended to read as follows:
"e. The aggregate liability for a single nuclear incident of per-
sons indemnified, including the reasonable costs of investigating
and settling claims and defending suits for damage, shall not ex-
ceed the sum of $500,000,000 together with the amount of financial
protection required of the licensee or contractor: Provided, how-
ever, That with respect to any nuclear incident occurring outside
of the United States to which an agreement of indemnification
entered into under the provisions of subsection 170d. is applicable,
such aggregate liability shall not exceed the amount of $100,000,-
000 together with the amount of financial protection required of
the contractor. The Commission or any person indemnified may
apply to the appropriate district court of the United States having
venue in bankruptcy matters over the location of the nuclear in-
cident, except that in the case of nuclear incidents occurring out-
side the United States, the Commission or any person indemnified
may apply to the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia, and upon a showing that the public liability from a
single nuclear incident will probably exceed the limit of liability
imposed by this section, shall be entitled to such orders as may be
appropriate for enforcement of the provisions of this section,
[p. 410]
including an order limiting the liability of the persons indemnified,
orders staying the payment of claims and the execution of court
judgments, orders apportioning the payments to be made to claim-
ants, orders permitting partial payments to be made before final
determination of the total claims, and an order setting aside a part
of the funds available for possible latent injuries not discovered
until a later time."
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 637
SEC. 9. Section 109 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is amended
by striking out the words "lip. (2) or llv. (2)" and substituting
therefore the words "lit.(2) or llaa.(2)".
SEC. 12. Subsection 161n. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is
amended by striking out the words "145e." and substituting there-
for the words "145f.".
Approved August 29, 1962.
[p. 411]
l.lq(l) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
S. REP. No. 1677, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962)
AMENDMENTS TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954
JULY 5, 1962.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. PASTOKE, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 3491]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered S.
3491, to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, reports favorably
thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.
SUMMARY OF BILL
The bill, as recommended by the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy, makes miscellaneous amendments to the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, which can be grouped into four general categories:
(1) Regulatory amendments.—Sections 1 through 3 of the bill
amend the regulatory provisions of the act by authorizing the estab-
lishment of one or more Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards and
modifying AEC regulatory procedures in other respects.
(2) Indemnity amendments.—Sections 4 through 7 of the bill
amend the indemnity provisions of the act to extend Government
-------
638 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
indemnity to contractors of the U.S. Government for incidents oc-
curring outside the United States.
(3) Standard authorization language.—Section 8 of the bill in-
corporates into permanent law the boilerplate clauses on "advance
planning and design," "restoration and replacement" and "sub-
stitutions" which in the past have appeared each year in the an-
nual AEG authorization acts.
(4) Minor drafting changes.—Sections 9 through 12 make cer-
tain minor changes in several sections of the act to correct minor
drafting errors or omissions.
[p. 1]
Section 6 of the bill adds a proviso to section 170d. of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, providing that in the case of incidents
occurring outside the United States, the amount of indemnity pro-
vided by the Commission shall not exceed $100 million.
Section 7 of the bill adds a proviso to section 170e. of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, limiting the liability of contractors of
the United States for incidents occurring outside the United States
to $100 million.
Section 7 also amends section 170 e. of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 to establish a single place of venue over all applications for
limitation of liability and related orders in connection with in-
cidents occurring outside the United States. The place of venue
established is the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
[p. 14]
Section 170e. now provides that, in connection with the Savan-
nah, applications for limitation of liability and related orders must
be filed in the district court "having venue in bankruptcy matters
over the location of the principal place of business of the shipping
company owning or operating the ship." This amendment would
bring the Sarannah under the venue provisions established for all
foreign nuclear incidents.
* ******
Section 9 of the bill amends section 109 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 by deleting the words "lip. (2) or llv.(2)" and sub-
stituting therefor the words "lit. (2) or llaa.(2)".
Section 12 of the bill amends section 161 n. of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 by deleting the reference to section 145 e. and sub-
stituting a reference to section 145 f. Section 145 was amended
and relettered by amendments in Public Law 87-206 in 1961.
Section 161 was not appropriately amended at that time.
[p. 15]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 639
SEC. 170. INDEMNIFICATION AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.—
"d. In addition to any other authority the Commission may have,
the Commission is authorized until August 1, 1967, to enter into
agreements of indemnification with its contractors for the con-
struction or operation of production or utilization facilities or
other activities under contracts for the benefit of the United States
involving activities under the risk of public liability for a substan-
tial nuclear incident. In such agreements of indemnification the
Commission may require its contractor to provide and maintain
financial protection of such a type and in such amounts as the
Commission shall determine to be appropriate to cover public
liability arising out of or in connection with the contractual ac-
tivity, and shall indemnify the persons indemnified against such
claims above the amount of the financial protection required, in
the amount of $500,000,000 including the reasonable costs of in-
vestigating and settling claims and defending suits for damages in
the aggregate for all persons indemnified in connection with such
contract and for each nuclear incident[.]: Provided, however, That
in the case of nuclear incidents occurring outside the United
States, the amount of the indemnity provided by the Commission
shall not exceed $100,000,000. The provisions of this subsection
may be applicable to lump sum as well as cost type contracts and
to contracts and projects financed in whole or in part by the
Commission."
e. The aggregate liability for a single nuclear incident of persons
indemnified, including the reasonable costs of investigating and
settling claims and defending suits for damage, shall not exceed
the sum of $500,000,000 together with the amount of financial pro-
tection required of the licensee or contractor:!.] Provided, however,
That with respect to any nuclear incident occurring outside of the
United States to which an agreement of indemnification entered
into under the provisions of subsection, 170 d. is applicable, such
aggregate liability shall not exceed the amount of $100,000,000
together with the amount of financial protection required of the
contractor. The Commission or any person indemnified may apply
to the appropriate district court of the United States having venue
in bankruptcy matters over the location of the nuclear incident;
except that in the case of nuclear incidents [caused by ships of the
United States outside of the United States, the Commission or any
person indemnified may apply to the appropriate district court of
the United States having venue in bankruptcy matters over the lo-
cation of the principal place of business of the shipping company
-------
640 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
owning or operating the ship,] occurring outside the United States,
the Commission or any person indemnified may apply to the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and
upon a showing that the public liability from a single nuclear in-
cident will probably exceed the limit of liability imposed by this
section, shall be entitled to such orders as may be appropriate for
enforcement of the provisions of this section, including an order
limited the liability of the persons indemnified, orders staying the
payment of claims and the execution of court judgments, orders
apportioning the payments to be made to claimants, orders permit-
ting partial payments to be made before final determination of the
total claims, and an order setting aside a part of the funds avail-
able for possible latent injuries not discovered until a later time.
*******
[p. 18]
SEC. 261. APPROPRIATIONS.—
*******
"c. Funds are hereby authorized to be appropriated for advance
planning, construction design, and architectural services in con-
nection with any plant or facility not otherwise authorized, and for
the restoration or replacement of any plant or facility destroyed or
otherwise seriously damaged, and the Commission is authorized to
use available funds for such purposes.
"d. Funds hereafter authorized to be appropriated for any proj-
ect to be used in connection with the development or production of
special nuclear material or atomic weapons may be used to start
another project not otherwise authorized if the substituted project
is within the limit of cost of the project for which substitution is
to be made, and the Commission certifies that—
"(1) the substituted project is essential to the common de-
fense and security;
"(2) the substituted project is required by changes in
weapon characteristics or weapon logistic operations; and
"(3) the Commission is unable to enter into a contract
with any person on terms satisfactory to it to furnish from a
privately owned plant or facility the product or services to be
provided by the new project."
"SEC. 109. COMPONENT PARTS OF FACILITIES.—With respect to
those utilization and production facilities which are so determined
by the Commission pursuant to subsection [11 p. (2) or 11 v. (2)]
11 b. (2) or 11 aa. (2) the Commission may (a) issue general li-
censes for activities required to be licensed under section 101, if
the Commission determines in writing that such general licensing
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 641
will not constitute an unreasonable risk to the common defense and
security, and (b) issue licenses for the export of such facilities,
if the Commission determines in writing that each export will not
constitute an unreasonable risk to the common defense and secu-
rity."
*******
"SEC. 145. RESTRICTIONS.—
* * * * * * *
"f. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections a., b., and c.
of this section, a majority of the members of the Commission shall
certify those specific positions which are of a high degree of im-
portance or sensitivity, and upon such certification, the investiga-
tion [,] and reports required by such provisions shall be made by
the Federal Bureau of Investigation."
***** Hi 'I'
"SEC. 152. INVENTIONS MADE OR CONCEIVED DURING COMMIS-
SION CONTRACTS.—Any invention or discovery, useful in the pro-
duction or utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy,
made or conceived in the course of or under any contract, sub-
contract, or arrangement entered into with or for the benefit of
the Commission, regardless of whether the contract, subcontract,
or arrangement involved the expenditure of funds by the Com-
mission, shall be vested in, and be the property of the Commission,
except that the Commission may waive its claim to any such in-
[p. 19]
vention or discovery under such circumstances as the Commission
may deem appropriate, consistent with the policy of this section.
No patent for any invention or discovery, useful in the production
or utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy, shall be
issued unless the applicant files with the application, or within
thirty days after request therefor by the Commissioner of Patents
(unless the Commission advises the Commissioner of Patents that
its rights have been determined and that accordingly no statement
is necessary) a statement under oath setting forth the full facts
surrounding the making or conception of the invention or discov-
ery described in the application and whether the invention or
discovery was made or conceived in the course of or under any
contract, subcontract, or arrangement entered into with or for the
benefit of the Commission, regardless of whether the contract, sub-
contract, or arrangement involved the expenditure of funds by the
Commission. The Commissioner of Patents shall as soon as the
application is otherwise in condition for [allowances] allowance
-------
642 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
forward copies of the application and the statement to the Com-
mission. * * *."
"SEC. 161. GENERAL PROVISIONS. —
*******
"n. delegate to the General Manager or other officers of the
Commission any of those functions assigned to it under this Act
except those specified in sections 51, 57a. (3), 61, 102 (with respect
to the finding of practical value), 108, 123, 145b. (with respect to
the determination of those persons to whom the Commission may
reveal Restricted Data in the national interest), [145e.,] 145f., and
*
[P. 20]
l.lq(2) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
H.K. REP. No. 1966, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962)
AMENDMENTS TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954
JULY 5, 1962.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. HOLIFIELD, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 12336]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered H.R.
12336, to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, reports favorably
thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.
SUMMARY OF BILL
The bill, as recommended by the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy, makes miscellaneous amendments to the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, which can be grouped into four general categories:
(1) Regulatory amendments.—Sections 1 through 3 of the bill
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
643
amend the regulatory provisions of the act by authorizing the
establishment of one or more Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards
and modifying AEC regulatory procedures in other respects.
(2) Indemnity amendments.-—Sections 4 through 7 of the bill
amend the indemnity provisions of the act to extend Government
indemnity to contractors of the U.S. Government for incidents
occurring outside the United States.
(3) Standard authorization language.—Section 8 of the bill in-
corporates into permanent law the boilerplate clauses on "advance
planning and design," "restoration and replacement" and "substi-
tutions" which in the past have appeared each year in the annual
AEC authorization acts.
(4) Minor drafting changes.—Sections 9 through 12 make
certain minor changes in several sections of the act to correct
minor drafting errors or omissions.
[p. 1]
l.lq(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 108 (1962)
l.lq(3)(a) Aug. 7: Passed Senate, p. 15746
AMENDMENT OF THE ATOMIC
ENERGY ACT OF 1954
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
move that the pending business be tem-
porarily laid aside, and that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calen-
dar No. 1639, Senate bill 3491.
The motion was agreed to; and the
Senate proceeded to the consideration
of the bill (S. 3491) to amend the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, and for other purposes.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
may say that this bill is being taken up
after its clearance by both sides and
with the members of the Joint Com-
mittee on Atomic Energy.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, so
far as I know, there is no objection to
the bill. It is noncontroversial. We
have held considerable hearings, and I
think the bill is satisfactory to both the
Republican members and the Demo-
cratic members of the Joint Committee.
Mr. President, Senate bill 3491 is a
Joint Committee omnibus bill which
makes miscellaneous amendments to
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The
amendments may be grouped into four
general categories.
First. Sections 1 through 3 of the
bill amend the regulatory provisions of
the Atomic Energy Act by authorizing
the establishment of one or more
Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards,
and by modifying the AEC regulatory
procedures in other respects.
Second. Sections 4 through 7 of the
bill amend the indemnity provisions of
the Atomic Energy Act, so as to extend
Government indemnity to contractors
of the U.S. Government for incidents
occurring outside the United States.
Third. Section 8 of the bill incor-
porates into permanent law the boiler-
plate clauses on "advanced planning
and design," "restoration and replace-
ment," and "substitutions," which in
-------
644
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
the past have appeared each year in the
annual AEG authorization acts.
Fourth. Sections 9 through 12 of the
bill make minor changes in several sec-
tions of the act, to correct certain
drafting errors or omissions.
Under section 1, the Commission is
authorized to use an Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board in lieu of a hearing
examiner to conduct hearings and make
decisions in atomic-energy licensing
cases. The licensing of atomic reac-
tors involves very complicated technical
and scientific determinations. A study
by the staff of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy in 1960-61 pointing up
the need for technical expertise in
making these determinations, and the
committee considered the problem dur-
ing hearings in 1961 and again in 1962.
The Atomic Safety and Licensing
Board will consist of two persons with
technical backgrounds and one person
"skilled in the conduct of administra-
tive proceedings." The Commission is
given wide flexibility in selecting mem-
bers for the Board, in deciding in
which cases to use the Board, and in
deciding on the amount of authority
to be delegated to it. The Commission
may also utilize the Board in an ad-
visory capacity on rulemaking and
other regulatory functions. It is the
belief of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy that the use of an
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board,
if properly implemented by AEC, will
further improve the AEC regulatory
process.
Section 2 of the bill relaxes the man-
datory hearing requirement in section
189 of the Atomic Energy Act. Under
existing law, a hearing must be held on
the application for a construction per-
mit and on the application for an oper-
ating license. Under the terms of the
committee's amendment, a hearing will
be required only on the construction
permit, which is really the critical point
in reactor licensing—the point at which
the suitability of the reactor site is de-
termined. This amendment in no way
limits the right of an interested party
to intervene and request a hearing at
some later stage, nor does it affect the
right of the Commission to hold a hear-
ing on its own motion.
Section 3 of the bill relaxes the
requirement for referral of license
amendments to the Commission's Ad-
visory Committee on Reactor Safe-
guards. It is the committee's hope
that by relieving the very capable
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safe-
guards of the responsibility for
reviewing minor amendments, this dis-
tinguished group may be able to devote
its full attention to safety questions of
more far-reaching importance.
Sections 4 through 7 will extend the
indemnity provisions of the Atomic
Energy Act to cover contractors of the
United States who are engaged in ac-
tivities outside the continental limits
of the country. The primary purpose
of these amendments is to protect con-
tractors of the AEC who are engaged
in the nuclear submarine, nuclear
rocket, and remote military reactors
program. Under the terms of the
amendment these contractors will be
eligible for $100 million of Government
indemnity, with a comparable limita-
tion of liability for incidents occurring
outside the United States. This is in
contrast to the $500 million indemnity
which the AEC now makes available
to licensees and contractors of the
Commission for incidents occurring
within the United States.
Section 8 of the bill incorporates into
permanent law a number of standard
provisions which appear each year in
the AEC authorization act.
Sections 9 through 12 merely correct
minor drafting omissions, and are not
intended to have any substantive effect
on the Atomic Energy Act.
In connection with section 9 of the
bill, Mr. President, on page 8, line 4,
where the words "lib. (2)" appear, the
reference should, instead, be to "llv.
(2)." This is an error in the bill as
prepared for printing, and the proper
reference should be included in the bill
as passed by the Senate. I ask unan-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
645
imous consent for this purpose.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, this
bill is in keeping with the Joint Com-
mittee's continuing effort to keep the
Atomic Energy Act up to date with
new developments in the field of atomic
energy. The bill has been reported
from the Joint Committee without any
dissenting vote, and I urge its passage
by the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill is open to amendment. If there be
no amendment to be proposed, the ques-
tion is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill (S. 3491) was ordered to be
engrossed for a third reading, read the
third time, and passed, as follows:
* * * * *
[p. 15746]
l.lq(b) Aug. 15: Passed House, p. 16551
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lr TO ADJUST POSTAL RATES
October 11, 1962, P.L. 87-793, §1001(g), 76 Stat. 864
SEC. 1001.
(g) That part of the proviso in section 161d. of the Atomic En-
ergy Act of 1954, as amended (71 Stat. 613; 42 U.S.C. 2201), fixing
a limit of $19,000 on the compensation of scientific and technical
personnel, is amended by striking out the words "up to a limit of
$19,000)" and inserting in lieu thereof "up to a limit of the highest
rate of grade 18 of the General Schedule of the Classification Act
of 1949, as amended)".
[p. 864]
-------
646 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
l.lr(l) HOUSE COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND
CIVIL SERVICE
H.R. REP. No. 1155, 87th Cong., 1st Sess. (1961)
POSTAGE REVISION ACT OF 1961
SEPTEMBER 7, 1961.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. MURRAY, from the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 7927]
The Committe on Post Office and Civil Service, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 7927) to adjust postal rates, and for other
purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
with amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
AMENDMENTS
#*#*#**
[P. i]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 647
l.lr(2) SENATE COMMITTEE ON POST OFFICE AND
CIVIL SERVICE
S. REP. No. 2120, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962)
POSTAL SERVICE AND FEDERAL EMPLOYEES SALARY
SEPTEMBER 24, 1962.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. JOHNSTON, from the Committee on Post Office and Civil
Service, submitted the following
REPORT
Together with
INDIVIDUAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 7927]
The Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 7927) to adjust postal rates, and for other
purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon
with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do
pass.
AMENDMENT
The committee amendment strikes out all of the bill after the
enacting clause and substitutes therefor a new bill which appears
in the reported bill in italic type.
STATEMENT
This is one of the most far-reaching, comprehensive and com-
plex measures ever reported by the Committee on Post Office and
Civil Service. It will have an effect on every user of the mails, the
future of the postal service and the welfare of every Federal em-
ployee both at home and abroad.
The postal provisions of the bill, as reported, have as a back-
ground years of committee work aided by an extensive study and
report by an Advisory Council appointed pursuant to Senate Res-
olution 49 by Senator Carlson (83d Cong., 1st sess.) and a further
study by a Citizens' Advisory Council under Senator Johnston
during the 85th Congress in addition to months of public hearings
-------
648 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
held by the full committee during the current session of the 87th
Congress.
[p. l]
TITLE VI—MISCELLANEOUS SALARY PROVISIONS
*******
Section 1001
*******
Subsection (g) amends the proviso in section 161 (d) of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to permit the fixing of
salaries of scientific and technical personnel up to a limit of the
pay of grade GS 18 of the General Schedule of the Classification
Act. The present limit is $19,000.
[p. 32]
l.lr(3) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 2525, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962)
POSTAL SERVICE AND FEDERAL EMPLOYEES SALARY
ACT OF 1962
OCTOBER 3, 1962.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. MURRAY, from the committee of conference, submitted the
following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 7927]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 7927) to
adjust postal rates, and for other purposes, having met, after full
and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recommend
to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as fol-
lows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 649
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment insert the following:
That this Act may be cited as the "Postal Service and Federal
Employees Salary Act of 1962."
****** #
[p. 1]
(g) That 'part of the proviso in section 161d. of the Atomic En-
ergy Act of 1954, as amended (71 Stat. 613; 42 U.S.C. 2201), fixing
a limit of $19,000 on the compensation of scientific and technical
personnel, is amended by striking out the ivords "up to a limit of
$19,000)" and inserting in lieu thereof "up to a limit of the highest
rate of grade 18 of the General Schedule of the Classification Act
of 1949, as amended)".
[p. 36]
l.lr(4) COMMITTEE OF CONFERENCE
H.R. REP. No. 2532, 87th Cong., 2d Sess. (1962)
POSTAL SERVICE AND FEDERAL EMPLOYEES SALARY
ACT OF 1962
OCTOBER 4, 1962.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. MURRAY, from the committee of conference, submitted the
following
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 7927]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 7927)
to adjust postal rates, and for other purposes, having met, after
full and free conference, have agreed to recommend and do recom-
mend to their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amendment
of the Senate and agree to the same with an amendment as fol-
lows:
-------
650
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Senate
amendment insert the following:
That this Act may be cited as the "Postal Service and Federal
Employees Salary Act of 1962".
[p. IJ
l.lr(5) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 108 (1962)
l.lr(5)(a) Jan. 24: Passed House, p. 827
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lr(5) (b) Sept. 27: Amended and passed Senate, p. 21014
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lr(5)(c) Oct. 3: Senate agrees to Conference Report, p. 22027
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lr(5)(d) Oct. 4: Senate agrees to Conference Report, p. 22232
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lr(5) (e) Oct. 5: House agrees to Conference Report, p. 22602
POSTAL SERVICE AND FEDERAL
EMPLOYEES SALARY ACT or 1962
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
4 minutes to the gentleman from Mon-
tana [Mr. OLSEN].
Mr. OLSEN. Mr. Speaker, as has
already been said and repeated, this is
not a perfect bill. But it is the best
that we can get accomplished at this
session. I regret that we have not been
able to meet the new standards that we
have attempted to meet, which would be
comparability. I regret that in the
lower brackets and in the higher brack-
ets we have in every instance failed to
raise the Federal pay and the postal
pay schedules to that comparable paid
to employees in private industry who
have similar responsibilities and who
perform similar work.
We are indeed, with the figures at
which we have arrived, at least 3 years
late—at least 3 years late. So, we are
not even catching up in our responsi-
bilities to pay Federal employees and
postal employees comparable to what
they should be paid, if their responsi-
bilities and their chores are compared
with private industry.
Mr. Speaker, in the lower grades I
have always contended that Uncle Sam
should be the best kind of an employer.
He should not pay any better than, but
he should pay as good as the better
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
651
wages and the better salaries of indus-
try. In the higher brackets, of course,
we cannot expect the Government to
pay the same type of compensation
which is paid in the higher brackets of
industry. But in this bill, as has been
said, we have done the best we can and
I think it is a good job. But I do regret
that we have been so tardy in increas-
ing the annuities payable to retirees. I
think that the increase should have
been a good deal more. I regret, too,
that of all the people who are to realize
some increase in benefits or increase in
pay in this bill, the people who least
can afford to wait are having to wait
the longest and they are the retirees.
Indeed, the retirees will get an increase,
but they will not get it until next year.
They will not get their increase until
the Committee on Appropriations can
meet and can vote that increase. I as-
sume that the Committee on Appro-
priations will vote the increased
appropriation to apply as of the effec-
tive date of the bill, January 1, 1963.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, as my dear
friend, the gentleman from Louisiana
has said a few days ago, this is our
only opportunity. If we are in favor
of paying just wages and just salaries
to Federal employees and postal em-
ployees, and somewhere near a rightful
annunity to the Federal employees,
this is our only opportunity. If we are
in favor of improving these standards,
we will vote for this bill. If we are
against an improvement in these ben-
efits and these standards, we will vote
against this bill. This is our only
opportunity. I shall vote for the bill
and I recommend to my colleagues that
you vote for the bill.
I hope that next year we can provide
a more adequate increase of annuities
for the widows, especially those who
are receiving less than $50 per month.
Now let us pass this bill today.
Mr. MURRAY. Mr. Speaker, I yield
2 minutes to the gentleman from Loui-
siana [Mr. MORRISON].
Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Speaker and
Members of the House, we have now
come to the final decision on this pay
raise legislation. Those who are op-
posed to this legislation have tried to
bring up confusion as a reason to be
against this bill and argue about the
way the hearings were held and the
way the bill was reported out.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any
bill that has been before this House at
this session where there were more wit-
nesses or more hearings or where the
entire subject was gone into to the
fullest extent, than this bill which was
reported by the Committee on Post
Office and Civil Service. The same
thing applies to the other body.
The other body passed this bill out of
its committee by an overwhelming ma-
jority of the members of that commit-
tee. This bill is just about the same
bill in the form that you find it now as
the Senate passed it. The House bill
which was passed out of our committee
by an overwhelming majority is about
90 to 95 percent of the bill in conference
and the compromise which is now be-
fore the House. So I say this: The
Senate has passed the bill; those who
are for giving the Federal employees
equal pay as compared to those in like
jobs in private industry will vote for
this conference report. If you are for
giving the Federal employees a fair
and reasonable wage as compared to
similar jobs in private industry, then
you are for this bill. If you are not,
then you should vote against the bill.
[p. 22602]
-------
652 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
1.1s TO AMEND THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954,
AS AMENDED
August 1,1964, P.L. 88-394, §§2,3, 78 Stat. 376
AN ACT
To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Atomic Energy Com-
munity Act of 1955, as amended, and the EURATOM Cooperation Act of
1958, as amended.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That subsection
153 (h) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended
by striking out the date "September 1, 1964" and inserting in lieu
thereof the date "September 1, 1969".
SEC. 2. Subsection 170 c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following
new sentence: "With respect to any production or utilization
facility for which a construction permit is issued between August
30, 1954, and August 1, 1967, the requirements of this subsection
shall apply to any license issued for such facility subsequent to
August 1, 1967."
SEC. 3. Subsection 170 k. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following
new sentence: "With respect to any production or utilization fa-
cility for which a construction permit is issued between August 30,
1954, and August 1, 1967, the requirements of this subsection
shall apply to any license issued for such facility subsequent to
August 1, 1967".
[p. 376]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 653
l.ls(l) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
S. REP. No. 1128, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964)
AMENDMENTS TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954,
AS AMENDED, THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY
ACT OF 1955, AS AMENDED, AND THE EURATOM
COOPERATION ACT OF 1958, AS AMENDED
JUNE 30, 1964.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. PASTORE, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 2963]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered S.
2963 to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the
Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955, as amended, and the
Euratom Cooperation Act of 1958, as amended, report favorably
thereon and recommend that the bill do pass.
SUMMARY OF THE BILL
Section 1 of the bill would amend subsection 153 h. of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, by extending for an ad-
ditional 5 years the Atomic Energy Commission's authority to
require the licensing of atomic energy patents. The Commission's
current authority expires on September 1, 1964. The amendment
would extend the authority to September 1, 1969.
Section 2 of the bill would clarify the Price-Anderson indem-
nity provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Specifically,
subsection 170 c. would be amended to make it clear that a produc-
tion or utilization facility for which the Commission issues a
construction permit prior to August 1, 1967, will be afforded Price-
Anderson indemnity coverage extending through the period of its
operation, without regard to whether or not the operating license
for the facility is issued prior to August 1, 1967.
Section 3 of the bill would amend subsection 170 k. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 in order to similarly clarify the Price-
Anderson indemnity provisions with respect to facilities used for
-------
654 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
educational activities and operated by nonprofit educational in-
stitutions.
Section 4 of the bill would amend the Atomic Energy Com-
munity Act of 1955 by adding a new section 120. This section
[p. l]
would authorize the Commission to lease land and to sell, lease
(including leases with options to purchase), or otherwise dispose
of improvements and personal property located in the Commis-
sion's project area in or near Richland, Wash. One of the Atomic
Energy Commission's major facilities, the Hanford Works, is
located near the city. Action by the AEC under this new section
would be contingent upon a determination by the Commission that
such property dispositions would serve to prevent or reduce the
adverse economic impact of actual or anticipated reductions in
AEC programs in the Richland area. Property to be sold or leased
under this authority would be disposed of at its estimated fair
market or fair rental value, as appropriate.
Section 5 of the bill would amend section 5 of the Euratom Co-
operation Act of 1958, as amended, by authorizing the Commission
to transfer to the European Atomic Energy Community (Eura-
tom) up to 70,000 kilograms of contained uranium 235 and up to
500 kilograms of plutonium. The amendment would add 40,000
kilograms of uranium 235 and 491 kilograms of plutonium to the
amounts presently authorized for sale or lease to Euratom. Vir-
tually all of the additional uranium 235 and all of the plutonium
authorized for transfer to Euratom by this amendment will be
transferred on a straight sale basis.
A more complete explanation of the provisions in this bill is
contained in sections of this report entitled "Committee Com-
ments" and "Section-by-Section Analysis."
BACKGROUND
On June 24, 1963, the Atomic Energy Commission transmitted
to the Congress a proposed 1963 omnibus bill containing an amend-
ment to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and an amendment to the
Euratom Cooperation Act of 1958. The proposed bill was intro-
duced by Chairman Pastore (by request) as S. 1795 on June 26
and by Vice Chairman Holifield (by request) as H.R. 7300 on the
same date. Hearings were held on this legislation on July 17,
1963, by the Subcommittee on Legislation.
The subcommittee met on September 10, 1963, and voted to ap-
prove H.R. 7300 and S. 1795 with the deletion of section 1, relating
to bonding requirements for radioactive waste disposal licensees.
The full committee, however, deferred legislative action because
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 655
financial arrangements to implement the sale of special nuclear
materials to Euratom, authorized by the bill, had not been estab-
lished. The record of the 1963 hearings, however, provided a valu-
able guide to the committee in its consideration of the omnibus
legislation.
On May 6, 1964, the Atomic Energy Commission transmitted to
the Congress a proposed 1964 omnibus bill containing four amend-
ments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended. The pro-
posed bill was introduced by Chairman Pastore (by request) on
May 7, 1964, as S. 2816, and by Vice Chairman Holifield (by re-
quest) on May 7, 1964, as H.R. 11180.
On June 24, 1964, the Subcommittee on Legislation met to con-
sider H.R. 11180 and S. 2816 and after full discussion voted to
approve these bills with certain modifications.
On June 24 and 26, 1964, the full Joint Committee met and voted
to approve and combine the 1963 and 1964 omnibus bills as rec-
[p- 2]
ommended by the Subcommittee on Legislation with certain mod-
ifications; file clean bills (S. 2963 and H.R. 11892) and adopt this
report thereon.
HEARINGS
On July 17, 1963, the Subcommittee on Legislation of the Joint
Committee held hearings on H.R. 7300 and S. 1795, the 1963 om-
nibus bills submitted to the Congress by the Atomic Energy Com-
mission. The following witnesses testified at the hearings on
behalf of the Atomic Energy Commission: Hon. James T. Ramey,
Commissioner; Mr. A. A. Wells, Director, Division of International
Affairs; Mr. Harold L. Price, Director of Regulation; and Mr.
Bertram H. Schur, Office of the General Counsel.
In addition, the committee received testimony from Mr. H.
Glasser, representing Radiological Service Co., Inc.
On May 19, 1964, the Subcommittee on Legislation held hearings
on H.R. 11180 and S. 2816, the 1964 omnibus bills submitted to the
Congress by the Atomic Energy Commission.
The following witnesses testified at the hearings on behalf of
the Atomic Energy Commission:
Hon. James T. Ramey, Commissioner
Mr. Joseph Hennessey, General Counsel
The committee also received testimony from—
Hon. John Saylor, U.S. Representative from the State of
Pennsylvania
Mr. Oliver Townsend, chairman, New York State Atomic
Research and Development Authority
-------
656 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
Mr. A. F. Tegen, president, General Public Utilities Corp.
Mr. Joseph Moody, president, National Coal Policy
Conference
Mr. Brice O'Brien, general counsel, National Coal
Association
The foregoing hearings were published by the Joint Committee
under the title "AEC Omnibus Bills for 1963 and 1964."
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Introduction
The Joint Committee believes that it is a desirable practice for
the Commission to submit each year, and the committee to con-
sider, any proposed amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
and related atomic energy legislation. In this manner, the Con-
gress is able to provide the best possible legislative framework for
the national atomic energy program and keep this framework
current with emerging developments in the nuclear field.
The committee believes that the amendments proposed in this
bill are in keeping with the objectives set forth above, and accord-
ingly urges enactment of the bill (S. 2963) in the form reported by
the committee.
[p. 3]
II. Sections 2 and 3.-—Price-Anderson indemnity amendments
Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, generally known
as the Price-Anderson amendment, was added to the act in 1957
(Public Law 85-256). The primary purpose of the legislation was
to afford financial protection to the public against personal in-
juries and property damage resulting from reactor accidents. The
amendment was also designed to stimulate the development and
construction of nuclear powerplants by directing the Atomic En-
ergy Commission, for a limited period, to enter into agreements of
indemnification with licenses, constructing and operating nuclear
reactors, and other defined facilities under the act.
Under the terms of these agreements, the Commission contracts
to indemnify the reactor operator against public liability resulting
from nuclear incidents in the amount of $500 million, over and
above the amount of private insurance or other form of financial
protection that the Commission may require of the operator.
The basic approach of the bill was to provide a 10-year trial
period—until 1967—during which more information could be
gathered on the safety of nuclear powerplants and the ability of
the insurance industry to provide adequate insurance coverage. It
was hoped that the information gathered during this period would
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 657
provide a more reliable basis for the utility and insurance indus-
tries to evaluate the safety and insurability of nuclear reactors.
The committee, in the future, will begin preliminary considera-
tion of the experience thus far under the Price-Anderson legisla-
tion; the future need for such legislation, and the terms and
conditions under which it might be extended, if extension proves
desirable.
In the interim, a question involving the interpretation of the ex-
isting legislation has arisen, which it is the purpose of this bill to
clarify.
It was clearly the intent of Congress and this committee in
writing the Price-Anderson Act that the Commission's authority
would be effective for the full 10-year period to 1967. Moreover,
it was similarly the intent of Congress that Price-Anderson pro-
tection, once afforded, would continue in effect throughout the en-
tire period of the license. In this respect, the committee's report
on the Price-Anderson legislation (H. Kept. No. 435, 85th Cong.,
1st sess.) states:
The provisions of this bill provides governmental indemni-
fications to those licensees who obtain their licenses within
the next 10 years. The indemnification agreement is to run
for the life of the license.
There is no doubt that the term "license" as used in the act
clearly includes the term "construction permit." The act spe-
cifically so provides in section 185.
An extensive legal opinion by the General Counsel of the Atomic
Energy Commission concludes that the Commission is authorized
under the present law to offer Price-Anderson indemnity coverage
for the operation of a facility for which a construction permit is
issued prior to August 1, 1967, even if the license to operate the
facility is not
[p. 5]
issued until after that date. This view is shared by the Joint
Committee.
Nevertheless, the possibility of doubt on this point has been
raised by at least one utility company. Fundamentally, the doubt
arises out of the following sentence in subsection 170 c.:
Such a contract of indemnification shall cover public liabil-
ity arising out of or in connection with the licensed activity.
[Emphasis added.]
Two interpretations of this language are possible. The first—
and the one clearly supported by the legislative history of the
-------
658 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
amendment—is that "licensed activity" covers all activities to be
carried on at the facility which are subject to licensing. Under
this interpretation, all licensed activities at the facility would be
covered by indemnity protection, notwithstanding the fact that the
operating license is not issued until after August 1, 1967.
The second interpretation is that "licensed activity" narrowly
refers only to that activity which has been actually licensed as of
any given point in time. Thus, under this interpretation, if only a
construction permit had been issued prior to August 1, 1967, only
the construction of the facility could be indemnified.
To resolve any doubt on this matter, the Commission proposed,
and this committee supports, the clarifying amendments which ap-
pear in sections 2 and 3 of this bill. Section 2 of the bill clarifies
this situation with respect to power reactors and other defined
facilities under subsection 170 c. of the Atomic Energy Act. Sec-
tion 3 -would similarly clarify subsection 170 k. which is applicable
to facilities operated for educational purposes by nonprofit educa-
tional institutions.
In both cases the amendments will make it clear that Price-
Anderson indemnity protection may be extended to any facility for
which a construction permit is issued between August 30, 1954,
and August 1, 1967, notwithstanding that the operating license for
the facility is issued after August 1, 1967.
[P. 6]
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In accordance with subsection (4) of rule XXIX of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law recommended by the
bill accompanying this report are shown as follows (deleted matter
is shown in black brackets and new matter is printed in italic):
PUBLIC LAW 83-703
[Atomic Energy Act of 1954]
AN ACT To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, as amended, and for other
purposes
****** *
SEC. 153. NONMILITARY UTILIZATION.—
"h. The provisions of this section shall apply to any patent the
application for which shall have been filed before [September 1,
1964] September 1, 1969."
*******
SEC. 170. INDEMNIFICATION AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.—
"c. The Commission shall, with respect to licenses issued be-
tween August 30, 1954, and August 1, 1967, for which it requires
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 659
financial protection, agree to indemnify and hold harmless the li-
censee and
[p. ll]
other persons indemnified, as their interest may appear, from
public liability arising from nuclear incidents which is in ex-
cess of the level of financial protection required of the licensee. The
aggregate indemnity for all persons indemnified in connection with
each nuclear incident shall not exceed $500,000,000 including the
reasonable costs of investigating and settling claims and defending
suits for damage. Such a contract of indemnification shall cover
public liability arising out of or in connection with the licensed
activity. With respect to any production or utilization facility for
ivhich a construction permit is issued between August 30,1954, and
August 1, 1967, the requirements of this subsection shall apply to
any license issued for such facility subsequent to August 1, 1967."
"k. With respect to any license issued pursuant to section 53, 63,
81, 104 a., or 104 c. for the conduct of educational activities to a
person found by the Commission to be a non-profit educational in-
stitution, the Commission shall exempt such licensee from the
financial protection requirement of subsection 170 a. With respect
to licenses issued between August 30, 1954, and August 1, 1967,
for which the Commission grants such exemption:
"(1) * * *
»(2) * * *
"(3) * * *
Any licensee may waive an exemption to which it is entitled under
this subsection. With respect to any production or utilization fa-
cility for u'hick a construction permit is issued between August 30,
1954, and August 1, 1967, the requirements of this subsection shall
apply to any license issued for suck facility subsequent to August
1, 1967."
*******
[p. 12]
-------
660 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
l.ls(2) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
H.R. REP. No. 1525, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964)
AMENDMENTS TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954,
AS AMENDED, THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY
ACT OF 1955, AS AMENDED, AND THE EURATOM
COOPERATION ACT OF 1958, AS AMENDED
JUNE 30, 1964.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. HoLIFlELD, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 11832]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered H.R.
11832 to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the
Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955, as amended, and the
Euratom Cooperation Act of 1958, as amended, report favorably
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
SUMMARY OF THE BILL
Section 1 of the bill would amend subsection 153 h. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, by extending for an additional
5 years the Atomic Energy Commission's authority to require the
licensing of atomic energy patents. The Commission's current
authority expires on September 1, 1964. The amendment would
extend the authority to September 1, 1969.
Section 2 of the bill would clarify the Price-Anderson indemnity
provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Specifically, sub-
section 170 c. would be amended to make it clear that a production
or utilization facility for which the Commission issues a construc-
tion permit prior to August 1, 1967, will be afforded Price-Ander-
son indemnity coverage extending through the period of its
operation, without regard to whether or not the operating license
for the facility is issued prior to August 1, 1967.
Section 3 of the bill would amend subsection 170 k. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 in order to similarly clarify the Price-Ander-
son indemnity provisions with respect to facilities used for
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 661
educational activities and operated by nonprofit educational
institutions.
[p. i]
II. Sections 2 and 3.-—Price-Anderson indemnity amendments
Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, generally known
as the Price-Anderson amendment, was added to the act in 1957
(Public Law 85-256). The primary purpose of the legislation
was to afford financial protection to the public against personal
injuries and property damage resulting from reactor accidents.
The amendment was also designed to stimulate the development
and construction of nuclear powerplants by directing the Atomic
Energy Commission, for a limited period, to enter into agreements
of indemnification with licensees constructing and operating nu-
clear reactors, and other defined facilities under the act.
Under the terms of these agreements, the Commission contracts
to indemnify the reactor operator against public liability resulting
from nuclear incidents in the amount of $500 million, over and
above the amount of private insurance or other form of financial
protection that the Commission may require of the operator.
The basic approach of the bill was to provide a 10-year trial
period—until 1967—during which more information could be
gathered on the safety of nuclear powerplants and the ability of
the insurance industry to provide adequate insurance coverage. It
was hoped that the information gathered during this period would
provide a more reliable basis for the utility and insurance indus-
tries to evaluate the safety and insurability of nuclear reactors.
The committee, in the future, will begin preliminary considera-
tion of the experience thus far under the Price-Anderson legisla-
tion; the future need for such legislation, and the terms and
conditions under which it might be extended, if extension proves
desirable.
In the interim, a question involving the interpretation of the
existing legislation has arisen, which it is the purpose of this bill
to clarify.
It was clearly the intent of Congress and this committee in writ-
ing the Price-Anderson Act that the Commission's authority would
be effective for the full 10-year period to 1967. Moreover, it was
similarly the intent of Congress that Price-Anderson protection,
once afforded, would continue in effect throughout the entire period
of the license. In this respect, the committee's report on the Price-
Anderson legislation (H. Rept. No. 435, 85th Cong., 1st sess.)
states:
-------
662 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
The provisions of this bill provides governmental indemni-
fications to those licensees who obtain their licenses within
the next 10 years. The indemnification agreement is to run
for the life of the license.
There is no doubt that the term "license" as used in the act
clearly includes the term "construction permit." The act spe-
cifically so provides in section 185.
An extensive legal opinion by the General Counsel of the Atomic
Energy Commission concludes that the Commission is authorized
[p. 5]
under the present law to offer Price-Anderson indemnity coverage
for the operation of a facility for which a construction permit is
issued prior to August 1, 1967, even if the license to operate the
facility is not issued until after that date. This view is shared by
the Joint Committee.
Nevertheless, the possibility of doubt on this point has been
raised by at least one utility company. Fundamentally, the doubt
arises out of the following sentence in subsection 170 c.:
Such a contract of indemnification shall cover public liabil-
ity arising out of or in connection with the licensed activity.
[Emphasis added.]
Two interpretations of this language are possible. The first—
and the one clearly supported by the legislative history of the
amendment—is that "licensed activity" covers all activities to be
carried on at the facility which are subject to licensing. Under
this interpretation, all licensed activities at the facility would be
covered by indemnity protection, notwithstanding the fact that the
operating license is not issued until after August 1, 1967.
The second interpretation is that "licensed activity" narrowly
refers only to that activity which has been actually licensed as of
any given point in time. Thus, under this interpretation, if only
a construction permit had been issued prior to August 1, 1967, only
the construction of the facility could be indemnified.
To resolve any doubt on this matter, the Commission proposed,
and this committee supports, the clarifying amendments which ap-
pear in sections 2 and 3 of this bill. Section 2 of the bill clarifies
this situation with respect to power reactors and other defined fa-
cilities under subsection 170 c. of the Atomic Energy Act. Section
3 would similarly clarify subsection 170 k. which is applicable to
facilities operated for educational purposes by nonprofit educa-
tional institutions.
In both cases the amendments will make it clear that Price-An-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 663
derson indemnity protection may be extended to any facility for
which a construction permit is issued between August 30, 1954,
and August 1, 1967, notwithstanding that the operating license for
the facility is issued after August 1, 1967.
[p. 6]
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
HS % Jji # ?I: :I: i|J
Section 2 of the bill would amend subsection 170 c. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, by the addition of the following
sentence at the end thereof:
With respect to any production or utilization facility for which
a construction permit is issued between August 30, 1954, and
August 1, 1967, the requirements of this subsection shall ap-
ply to any license issued for such facility subsequent to Au-
gust 1, 1967.
This amendment clarifies the Price-Anderson Act by giving full
expression to the intent of Congress at the time of its enactment in
1957. The amendment will make it clear that Price-Anderson in-
demnity protection may be extended to any facility for which a
construction permit is issued between August 30, 1954, and August
1, 1967, notwithstanding that the operating license for the facility
is issued after August 1, 1967. Moreover, such protection, once ex-
tended, will remain in force for the entire period of the license
granted for the operation of the facility.
The amendment is not intended to either extend or modify the
Commission's existing authority under section 170 of the Atomic
Energy Act. It merely clarifies the act so as to specifically effec-
tuate the intent of Congress. As such, the amendment does not re-
quire that a second indemnity agreement be executed for a facility
for which an indemnity agreement is already in effect. In addi-
tion, subsection 170 e., which limits the liability for each nuclear
incident to $500 million, together with the amount of financial pro-
tection, would, of course, continue to apply to incidents occurring
during the period for which an indemnification agreement is in
effect.
Section 3 of the bill would amend subsection 170 k. of the Atomic
Energy Act by adding the same sentence added to subsection 170 c.
by section 2 of this bill. The amendment would accomplish the
same purpose with respect to facilities opeiated for the conduct of
educational activities by nonprofit educational institutions.
[p. 10]
-------
664
LEGAL COMPILATION—KADIATION
l.l.s(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 110 (1964)
l.ls(3)(a) July 8: Debated, passed Senate, pp. 16100-16101
AMENDMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY ACT
OF 1954, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMU-
NITY ACT OF 1955, AND EURATOM
COOPERATION ACT OF 1958
The Senate resumed the considera-
tion of the bill (S. 2963) to amend the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, the Atomic Energy Commu-
nity Act of 1955, as amended, and the
EURATOM Cooperation act of 1958,
as amended.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro
tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to
call the roll.
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
BREWSTER in the chair). Without ob-
jection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President,
what is the parliamentary situation?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill (S. 2963) to amend the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the
Atomic Energy Community Act of
1955, as amended; and the EURATOM
Cooperation Act of 1958, as amended, is
before the Senate.
Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President,
the bill now before the Senate, S. 2963,
is the AEG omnibus bill for 1964.
It contains a number of noncontro-
versial amendments to several basic
laws in the atomic energy field. The
amendments are intended to clarify
and modify this legislation in order to
keep our atomic energy laws current
with new developments in the nuclear
field.
Section 1 of the bill is a simple 5-
year extension of the AEC's authority
to compel the licensing of certain pat-
ents in the atomic energy field. This
authority first appeared in the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 with a 5-year lim-
itation. It was extended for another
5-year period in 1959 and expires on
September 1 of this year. The amend-
ment will allow this authority to con-
tinue until 1969.
The authority to compel the licensing
of atomic energy patents is a reserve
power. It has never been utilized by
the Commission in the past 10 years.
But, it is a useful reserve power be-
cause it prevents the creation of patent
monopolies in the formative period of
this new industry.
Sections 2 and 3 of the bill clarify
the Price-Anderson indemnity provi-
sions of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954.
The amendments would make it clear
that a nuclear reactor, for which the
Commission issues a construction per-
mit prior to August 1, 1967, will be
afforded Price-Anderson indemnity
coverage extending through the period
of its operation, even if the operating
license for the facility is not issued un-
til after that date. The AEC's author-
ity under the Indemnity Act expires
on August 1, 1967. If it were held
that an operating license had to be in
effect on this cutoff date then, because
of the leadtime involved in the con-
struction of new reactors, no facility
built between now and 1967 would be
eligible for indemnity coverage—the
Indemnity Act would be prematurely
terminated.
It was clearly the intent of Congress,
when the Price-Anderson Act was en-
acted in 1957 that the Commission's
authority under this act would be effec-
tive for a full 10-year period to 1967.
Every witness who testified before our
committee stated that this was the
proper and preferred interpretation of
the Price-Anderson Act. There is no
doubt on this point in the mind of any
member of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy. The General Counsel
of the AEC has rendered an opinion to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
665
this effect.
Nevertheless, doubt on this point has
been raised by at least one utility com-
pany. In our view this matter should
be clarified and accordingly the com-
mittee recommends the approval of
sections 2 and 3 of S. 2963.
These amendments will not modify,
alter or extend any aspect of the in-
demnity authority. It is only a clari-
fying amendment and is so regarded
by the committee.
Section 4 of the bill adds a new sec-
tion 120 to the Atomic Energy Commu-
nity Act of 1955. Under this authority
the Commission could make real and
personal property available in its Han-
ford project, located near Richland,
Wash., for the conduct of activities in
that area which do not relate to
atomic energy. The Commission could
lease land, and could sell or lease per-
sonal property, related to the land,
in the Commission's project area near
Richland.
This amendment is intended to con-
fer upon AEC the authority to dispose
of property for purposes not related to
the development and utilization of
atomic energy. The Commission, in
requesting this amendment, asserted
that it now has the authority, under
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, to dis-
pose of Government property for use
by the transferees for purposes related
to the development and utilization of
atomic energy. This amendment nei-
ther adds to, nor detracts from, what-
ever authority the Commission may
now have to dispose of property for
nuclear-related purposes. The matter
of the Commission's existing authority
is thus not germane to the considera-
tion of this amendment.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. ANDERSON. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. This particular para-
graph was of great interest to the New
[p. 16100]
York State Atomic and Research De-
velopment Authority. Based upon its
inclusion as a part of the legislative
history, I have withdrawn an objection
to consideration of the bill.
May I point out that in the state-
ment which the Senator made, perhaps
inadvertently, he used the words
"atomic power" instead of "atomic en-
ergy" at the end of the sentence
reading:
The Commission, in requesting this amend-
ment, asseitec! that it now has the authority,
undei the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, to
dispose of Government propel ty for use by the
transfeiees foi pin poses related to the develop-
ment and utilization of atomic enelgy.
Mr. ANDERSON. "Atomic energy"
are the correct words. Those are the
words I had intended to use. If I
used the word "power," it was inad-
vertent. As the Senator knows, I
spent a little time considering the
question of atomic power. I thank
the Senator.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator.
His courtesy and cooperation in this
matter is typical of my colleague, with
whom I have cooperated so closely in
other matters.
Mr. ANDERSON. The Senator's
request was a reasonable one, and one
that was fair; it should have been
included.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator.
Disposals of property under this
amendment would depend upon a de-
termination by the Commission that
the action would help to reduce the
adverse economic impact of reductions
in the Commission's activities in the
Richland area.
The reduction in the production of
plutonium announced by the President
in his state of the Union message in
January 1964, will have its greatest
impact at the Commission's Hanford
works near Richland, Wash. Begin-
ning with the 6-month period starting
January 1, 1965, about 2,000 positions,
or about 24 percent of the present em-
ployment level of some 8,300, will be
affected. A vigorous effort by Rich-
and community leaders over the past
few years has been directed at attract-
-------
666
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
ing new, diversified industry to the
Ricliland community. This effort has
had the sympathetic support of the
AEG. The additional authority in sec-
tion 4 would permit the Commission
to further assist the Richland commu-
nity leadership in its economic and in-
dustrial development efforts.
It is important to keep in mind that
the production cutbacks do not imply
an end to Richland's usefulness in the
atomic energy program. To the con-
trary, the community remains of con-
tinuing importance to the national
atomic energy program. Many activi-
ties involving both the military and
peaceful aspects of atomic energy are
conducted at the Hanford works. It is
vital that, as the Government's pro-
gram for the production of special
nuclear materials is lessened, the com-
munity remain viable to serve the
Commission's continuing requirements.
In our view, this legislation will
serve the objective of broadening the
economic base of the Richland com-
munity by creating new opportunities
for private initiative and private
enterprise.
All dispositions of property under
this legislation would be at the esti-
mated fair market value or fair rental
value. Furthermore, all proposed dis-
positions would have to be submitted
to the Joint Committee on Atomic En-
ergy in order to assure that the terms
and conditions of the dispositions are
in the national interest.
Finally, section 5 of the bill would
amend section 5 of the EURATOM
Cooperation Act of 1958 by adding
40,000 kilograms of uranium 235 and
491 kilograms of plutonium to the
amounts of these materials presently
authorized for transfer to Furatom.
The bulk of the 40,000 kilograms of
uranium 235 added by this amendment
would be used for civilian power appli-
cations in the European Atomic En-
ergy Community. These amounts
would be sold to Furatom on a straight-
sale basis, at the same charges made
for similar material distributed do-
mestically. Euratom will pay all ship-
ping charges from the A EC plant site.
Although firm supply contracts have
not yet been executed, if the entire
40,000 kilograms were sold to Euratom
the return to the United States would
be on the order of $300 million.
Return of this magnitude would, of
course, help in alleviating our balance-
of-payments problem.
Moreover, the assurance of long-
term supply of enriched uranium
should be of assistance in encouraging
the sale of U.S.-developed enriched
uranium reactors abroad.
With respect to the 491 additional
kilograms of plutonium authorized by
this amendment, this material will
similarly be sold to Euratom on a
straight sale basis at a base sales price
of approximately $43 per gram.
Euratom has already agreed to pur-
chase 350 kilograms of plutonium
which will be used in its fast breeder
reactor research and development pro-
gram. The return to the United States
from the sale of this amount of pluto-
nium is estimated at approximately
$15 million, of which $11 million is
expected to be received during fiscal
year 1965. Payment for the plutonium
will be made in U.S. dollars.
All material transferred to Euratom
is subject to the multination Euratom
safeguards system, in order to insure
against diversion to military purposes.
I should like to note, Mr. President,
that there are several minor printing
errors in connection with the punctua-
tion at the end of lines 23, 24, and 25 on
page 3. I ask unanimous consent for
the clerk to correct these errors, prior
to engrossment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr.
BKEWSTER in the chair). Without ob-
jection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President,
there is nothing controversial in this
bill. It is a sound bill, and I urge its
prompt enactment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill is open to amendment.
If there be no amendment to be
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
667
proposed, the question is on the en-
grossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading.
The bill was read the third time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill having been read the third time,
the question is, Shall it pass?
The bill (S. 2963) was passed, as
follows:
|; * X * *
[p. 16101]
l.ls(3)(b) July 21: Debated, passed House, pp. 16474-16476; 16478-
16479
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I
yield myself such time as I may require.
Mr. Speaker, the bill now before the
House, S. 2963, is the AEC omnibus
bill for 1964.
The bill contains several amend-
ments to basic laws in the atomic en-
ergy field. The amendments are not
controversial. This bill was reported
without dissent from the Joint Com-
mittee on Atomic Energy. It was ap-
proved by the other body several weeks
ago by voice vote.
This bill is in keeping with past AEC
omnibus bills. Its function is to clarify
and modify our atomic energy legisla-
tion in order to keep our laws current
with new developments in the nuclear
field.
Section 1 of the bill extends the
Atomic Energy Commission's author-
ity to require the licensing of certain
patents for a 5-year period. This au-
thority was initially included in the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 with a
5-year limitation. In 1959 the Con-
gress approved an extension until
September 1 of this year and the
amendment now before us would con-
tinue this authority until September 1,
1969.
Even though the authority to com-
pel the licensing of atomic energy
patents has never been used, the com-
mittee believes that this authority is
important. This "reserve" power can
be a useful tool in preventing the cre-
ation of patent monopolies during the
formative period of this young and
expanding industry.
Turning briefly to sections 2 and 3 of
the bill. These sections would clarify
the Price-Anderson indemnity provi-
sions of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954. The amendments would make it
clear that a nuclear reactor for which
the Commission issues a construction
permit prior to August 1, 1967, will be
afforded Price-Anderson indemnity
coverage extending through the period
of its operation even if the operating
license for the facility is not issued
until after that date.
I believe my colleague the gentleman
from California [Mr. HOSMER] intends
to discuss these amendments in greater
detail. I would only stress that these
amendments are simply for purposes
of clarification and do not extend, alter,
or modify in any way, the AEC's au-
thority under the Price-Anderson Act.
The question of whether the Price-
Anderson Act should be extended, and
if so, under what conditions is a sepa-
rate matter to be considered by the
committee in the near future.
[p. 16474]
Mr. HOSMER.
* * * .; ?i
Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back
now to sections 2 and 3 of this bill
which will clarify the Price-Anderson
Act.
The Price-Anderson indemnity
amendment was added to the Atomic
Energy Act in 1957. The purpose of
the legislation was to provide financial
protection for the public against in-
juries from nuclear reactor accidents.
-------
668
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
It was also the purpose of the amend-
ment to help stimulate the develop-
ment and construction of nuclear
powerplants. The Price-Anderson Act
authorized the Atomic Energy Com-
mission to enter into contracts to in-
demnify reactor operators against
public liability in the amount of $500
million over and above private insur-
ance required by the Commission.
The approach of Price-Anderson
was to provide a 10-year trial period—
until 1967—during which more infor-
mation could be gathered on the safety
of nuclear powerplants and the ability
of the insurance industry to provide
adequate coverage.
As my colleague has already pointed
out, the committee plans in the future
to consider whether legislation of this
type is needed any more and, if it is
needed, the terms and conditions under
which it might be extended.
In the meantime, a question has been
raised concerning an interpretation of
the Price-Anderson Act which we hope
to clarify by the amendments in sec-
tions 2 and 3 of this bill.
There is absolutely no doubt on the
part of any person who has examined
the Price-Anderson Act that it was the
intent of Congress that the Commis-
sion's authority would be effective for
a full 10-year period to 1967. It was
also the intent of Congress that Price-
Anderson protection, once afforded,
would continue in effect throughout the
entire period of a reactor license. This
was the conclusion of an extensive legal
opinion by the General Counsel of the
Atomic Energy Commission and it is
also the view of the Joint Committee.
Nevertheless, a doubt on this point has
been raised by at least one utility com-
pany. It has been pointed out that
section 170 (c) of the Atomic Energy
Act says that:
A contiact of indemnification shall covei
public liability arising out of or in connection
with the licensed activity.
People who are concerned about this
question point out that "licensed activ-
ity" might only refer to that activity
which has been licensed as of any given
point in time. Following this interpre-
tation, if only a construction permit
had been issued prior to the 1967 cutoff
date, then only the construction—and
not the operation of the plant—could
be indemnified.
As a practical matter this interpre-
tation would mean that the reactor op-
erator would have to have an operating
license before August 1, 1967, in order
to
[p. 16475]
be eligible for full Price-Anderson
coverage. In view of the leadtime in-
volved in building a nuclear reactor,
under this interpretation, the Price-
Anderson Act, for practical purposes,
would be terminated now.
This interpretation frustrates the
intent of Congress. The amendments
in sections 2 and 3 of this bill will give
full expression to the true intent of
Congress by making it clear that Price-
Anderson indemnity protection will be
extended to any facility for which a
construction permit is issued between
August 30, 1954, and August 1, 1967,
notwithstanding that the operating
license for the facility is issued after
August 1, 1967.
With respect to section 1 of the bill,
I believe we are in agreement that the
compulsory patent licensing provisions
of the Atomic Energy Act should be
extended for another 5 years.
As my colleague has noted, this is a
reserve power but it should be kept on
the books until the atomic energy in-
dustry is more fully developed.
Section 4 of the bill concerning the
disposition of property at Richland,
\7ash., has been tightened up very sub-
stantially by the committee. Although
the Commission had requested author-
ity to sell real property in addition to
the authority to lease such property,
t'-.e committee deleted the authority to
sell. It was our view that the Com-
mission would be in a better position to
control the use and disposition of real
property through the lease mechanism.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
669
Long-term leases will satisfactorily
meet the Commission's requirements
under this authority.
Second. Although the Atomic En-
ergy Commission requested authority
to dispose of property at less than fair
market or fair rental value in special
circumstances, the committee felt that
this would be a departure from general
Government policy which could not be
justified. We rewrote the bill to re-
quire that sales of property would be
at the fair market value while leases
of property would be at the estimated
fair rental value.
Finally the committee added a re-
quirement that all dispositions of prop-
erty under this section would have to
be reported to the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy. In this way the Con-
gress, through the Joint Committee,
will have an opportunity to review the
terms and conditions of each property
disposition to assure that it is fair and
in the national interest.
Mrs. MAY.
I am sure that our colleagues know
that although the Commission pres-
ently has the authority to dispose of
property for activities relating to
atomic energy, it does not have author-
ity to dispose of property for purposes
unrelated to atomic energy. It is felt
essential, as the gentleman from Cali-
fornia has pointed out, that if the AEG
is to provide effective assistance in the
economical stabilization of the Rich-
land area, where there can be an ad-
verse economic impact because of
.-actual or probable reductions in the
AEC program, that we must have the
right to handle our land and property
problems in a way that is made possible
under the provisions of this bill. I
thank the committee very much be-
cause we have needed this help and we
are all very grateful for their very
wise judgment and decisions in this
matter.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, I
thank the gentlelady for her comments.
I think that it is a matter of record that
the gentlelady has been of great assist-
ance herself to the committee in pro-
ducing the kind of legislation that will,
as we all believe, operate most effec-
tively in the area she represents.
[p. 16476]
Mr. GONZALEZ.
* * # * *
Still there is more. There are sec-
tions 2 and 3, the Price-Anderson
indemnity amendments. These amend-
ments involve Federal subsidies to pri-
vate industry as well as limitations on
the ability of the public to be compen-
sated in the event of a nuclear disaster
at an atomic energy plant. And there
is section 4, to authorize the AEC to
sell or lease property owned by the
Federal Government in and near Rich-
land, Wash., known as the Hanford
project. By this section the AEC will
be permitted to dispose of this public
property to private industry at less
than its fair market value. I would
think that these matters are important
enough to be brought up on the floor of
this representative body in a manner
that would insure a fair and thorough
debate.
A fair and thorough debate of all
these separate and diverse matters is
impossible with this bill. Everyone of
us would need to have more ears than
a field of corn in order to lend one ear
to each of the different matters brought
up in this single bill. That impossible
prospect is no less absurd than S. 2963.
Mr. O'BRIEN of New York. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. O'BRIEN of New York. Mr.
Speaker, I have asked for this brief
time, and I am grateful to the gentle-
man for yielding, so that I may address
a question to the chairman of the
committee.
Did I understand the gentleman
from California [Mr. HOLIFIELD] to
say that with regard to section 4 of
H. R. 11832, which would amend the
-------
670
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
Atomic Energy Community Act of
1955 to authorize disposals of property
at the Commission's Hanford project
in the State of Washington for non-
nuclear-related purposes, I would like
to emphasize the following sentences
from the statement of the gentleman
from California [Mr. HOLIFIELD] :
This amendment neither adds to, nor detiacts
from, whatever authority the Commission may
now have to dispose of property for nuclear-
related purposes. The matter of the Commis-
sion's existing authority is thus not geimane to
the consideiation of this amendment.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Those were my
exact words except the word "thus"
that you used, whereas I used the word
"therefore." In other words, I said
"The matter of the Commission's exist-
ing authority is therefore not germane
to the consideration of this amend-
ment." But otherwise it is verbatim.
Mr. O'BRIEN of New York. Mr.
Speaker, in view of the remarks made
by the distinguished gentlewoman
from Washington, I would like the
RECORD to reflect that doubts exist as
to the Commission's interpretation of
the scope of its authority to dispose of
property for nuclear-related purposes
under existing provisions of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended. I will assure that documen-
tation of these doubts is submitted to
the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.
[p. 16478]
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
KASTENMEIER). The question is on
suspending the rules and passing the
bill.
The question was taken; and (two-
thirds having voted in favor thereof),
the rules were suspended and the bill
was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
A similar House bill (H.R. 11832)
was laid on the table.
[p. 16479]
l.lt 1964 AMENDMENTS TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF
1954
August 26,1964, P.L. 88-489, §§3, 5-8,15,16, 78 Stat. 602
AN ACT
To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That subsection
2 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is deleted.
SEC. 2. Subsection 2 h. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is deleted.
SEC. 3. Subsection 3 c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended to read as follows:
"c. a program for Government control of the possession,
use, and production of atomic energy and special nuclear ma-
terial, whether owned by the Government or others, so di-
rected as to make the maximum contribution to the common
defense and secu-
[p. 6023
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 671
SEC. 5. Subsection 53 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, between the words "The Commission" and "such mate-
rial" is amended to read as follows:
"a. The Commission is authorized (i) to issue licenses to trans-
fer or receive in interstate commerce, transfer, deliver, acquire,
possess, own, receive possession of or title to, import, or export
under the terms of an agreement for cooperation arranged pursu-
ant to section 123, special nuclear material, (ii) to make special
nuclear material available for the period of the license, and, (iii)
to distribute special nuclear material within the United States to
qualified applicants requesting such material—"
SEC. 6. Subsection 53 c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended to read as follows:
"c. (1) The Commission may distribute special nuclear material
licensed under this section by sale, leare, lease with option to buy,
or grant: Provided, however, That unless otherwise authorized by
law, the Commission shall not after December 31, 1970, distribute
special nuclear material except by sale to any person who possesses
or operates a utilization facility under a license issued pursuant to
section 103 or 104 b. for use in the course of activities under such
license; nor shall the Commission permit any such person after
June 30, 1973, to continue leasing for use in the course of such
activities special nuclear material previously leased to such person
by the Commission.
"(2) The Commission shall establish reasonable sales prices for
the special nuclear material licensed and distributed by sale under
this section. Such sales prices shall be established on a nondis-
criminatory basis which, in the opinion of the Commission, will
provide reasonable compensation to the Government for such spe-
cial nuclear material.
"(3) The Commission is authorized to enter into agreements
with licensees for such period of time as the Commission may deem
necessary or desirable to distribute to such licensees such quan-
tities of special nuclear material as may be necessary for the
conduct of the licensed activity. In such agreements, the Commis-
sion may agree to repurchase any special nuclear material licensed
and distributed by sale which is not consumed in the course of the
licensed activity, or any uranium remaining after irradiation of
such special nuclear material, at a repurchase price not to exceed
the Commission's sale price for comparable special nuclear mate-
rial or uranium in effect at the time of delivery of such material
to the Commission.
"(4) The Commission may make a reasonable charge, deter-
mined pursuant to this section, for the use of special nuclear mate-
-------
672 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
rial licensed and distributed by lease under subsection 53 a. (1),
(2) or (4) and shall make a reasonable charge determined pursu-
ant to this section for the use of special nuclear material licensed
and distributed by lease under subsection 53 a. (3). The Com-
mission shall establish criteria in writing for the determination of
whether special nuclear
[p. 603]
material will be distributed by grant and for the determination of
whether a charge will be made for the use of special nuclear ma-
terial licensed and distributed by lease under subsection 53 a. (1),
(2) or (4), considering, among other things, whether the licensee
is a nonprofit or eleemosynary institution and the purposes for
which the special nuclear material will be used."
SEC. 7. Subsection 53 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended by adding the words "by lease" after the
word "distributed", and by amending subsection d. (5) to read as
follows:
"(5) with respect to special nuclear material consumed in a
facility licensed pursuant to section 103, the Commission shall
make a further charge equivalent to the sale price for similar
special nuclear material established by the Commission in ac-
cordance with subsection 53 c. (2), and the Commission may
make such a charge with respect to such material consumed in
a facility licensed pursuant to section 104."
SEC. 8. Subsection 53 e. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended by deleting subsection 53 e. (1).
[p. 605]
SEC. 15. Section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended by adding "53," after the word "sections"
in the first sentence.
SEC. 16. Section 161 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended by adding thereto the following new
subsection:
"(A) enter into contracts with persons licensed under sec-
tions 53, 63, 103 or 104 for such periods of time as the Com-
mission may deem necessary or desirable to provide, after
December 31, 1968, for the producing or enriching of special
nuclear material in facilities owned by the Commission; and
"(B) enter into contracts to provide, after December 31,
1968, for the producing or enriching of special nuclear mate-
rial in facilities owned by the Commission in accordance with
and within the period of an agreement for cooperation ar-
ranged pursuant to section 123 while comparable services are
made available pursuant to paragraph (A) of this subsection:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 673
Provided, That (i) prices for services under paragraph (A) of
this subsection shall be established on a nondiscriminatory basis;
(ii) prices for services under paragraph (B) of this subsection
shall be no less than prices under paragraph (A) of this subsec-
tion; and (iii) any prices established under this subsection shall
be on a basis which will provide reasonable compensation to the
Government: And provided further, That the Commission, to the
extent necessary to assure the maintenance of a viable domestic
uranium industry, shall not offer such services for source or spe-
cial nuclear materials of foreign origin intended for use in a utili-
zation facility within or under the jurisdiction of the United
States. The Commission shall establish criteria in writing setting
forth the terms and conditions under which services provided
under this subsection shall be made available including the extent
to which such services will be made available for source or special
nuclear material of foreign origin intended for use in a utilization
facility within or under the jurisdiction of the United States: Pro-
vided, That before the Commission establishes such criteria, the
proposed criteria shall be submitted to the Joint Committee, and a
period of forty-five days shall elapse while Congress is in session
(in computing the forty-five days there shall be excluded the days
in which either House is not in session because of adjournment for
more than three days) unless the Joint Committee by resolution in
writing waives the conditions of, or all or any portion of, such
forty-five-day period."
[p. 606]
-------
674 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
l.lt(l) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
S. REP. No. 1325, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964)
AMENDING THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954 TO
PROVIDE FOR PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF SPECIAL
NUCLEAR MATERIALS
AUGUST 5, 1964.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. PASTORE, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 3075]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered S.
3075, an original committee bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended, and for other purposes, report favorably
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
SUMMARY OF BILL
This bill, as reported by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
would amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to accomplish the
following principal purposes:
1. Termination of Mandatory Government Oicnerskip of Special
Nuclear Materials (sec. 4).—The bill would repeal section 52 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 which requires mandatory Govern-
ment ownership of all special nuclear material within or under the
jurisdiction of the United States. Provision for the continued ef-
fective regulation and control of such materials is assured in other
sections of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended by this bill.
2. Mandatory Private Oicrtershi-p (sec. 6).—The bill would au-
thorize the Atomic Energy Commission to lease, sell, or grant spe-
cial nuclear material. However, unless otherwise authorized by
law, the Commission could not, after December 31, 1970, distribute
special nuclear material except by sale to a person owning or op-
erating a nuclear power reactor if the material is intended for use
in such reactor. After June 30, 1973, unless otherwise authorized
by law, all special nuclear material previously leased to a person
owning or operating a nuclear power reactor for use in such re-
actor, would have to be converted to private ownership, unless
otherwise authorized by law. [p. i]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 675
Section 3 of the bill amends subsection 3c. of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (the expression of the purposes of the act) to em-
phasize that the elimination of the requirement for mandatory
Government ownership of special nuclear material has no impact
on either the authority or the responsibility of the Atomic Energy
Commission to regulate the domestic use of special nuclear
material.
The amendment also emphasizes that the elimination of the re-
quirement for mandatory Government ownership will have no im-
pact on the Government's ability to enter into and enforce agree-
ments with nations or groups of nations for the control of special
nuclear materials and atomic weapons. The bill is not intended to
make any change in the act in this respect.
[p. 20]
Section 5 of the bill, which deals with the authority of the Com-
mission to license and distribute special nuclear material domes-
tically, amends section 53 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The
amendment clarifies the authority of the Commission to license
ownership, possession, and use of special nuclear material and
brings this authority into conformity with the Commission's au-
thority to license source and byproduct material, and production
and utilization facilities.
In view of the elimination of mandatory Government owner-
ship, and consistent with the amendment to section 57 of the act
made by section 12 of this bill, it is necessary to authorize the
Commission to license imports and exports of special nuclear ma-
terial. Exports must be in accordance with agreements for co-
operation arranged pursuant to section 123. The authority to
license the export of
[p. 21]
special nuclear material is stated in terms substantially the same
as the authority now vested in the Commission to license the export
of utilization or production facilities.
Section 6 of the bill would amend subsection 53c. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 to accomplish the following:
(1) Authorize the Commission to distribute special nu-
clear material by sale, lease, lease with option to buy, or
grant;
(2) Direct the Commission not to distribute special nuclear
material except by sale after December 31, 1970, to certain
classes of licensees if the material is for use in the course of
activities so licensed;
(3) Direct the Commission not to permit the continued
-------
676 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
leasing of special nuclear material by certain classes of li-
censees after June 30, 1973, if such material is for use in the
course of activities so licensed;
(4) Direct the Commission to establish reasonable sales
prices for special nuclear material distributed by sale;
(5) Authorize the Commission to enter into long-term con-
tracts to distribute special nuclear material to licensees and
to agree to repurchase special nuclear material sold but not
consumed in the conduct of the licensed activity, and any
uranium remaining after irradiation of such special nuclear
material.
(6) Direct the Commission to establish criteria in writing
for the determination of whether special nuclear material will
be distributed by grant.
The new subsection 53c. (1) added by section 6 of this bill would
authorize the Commission to distribute special nuclear material by
sale, lease, lease with option to buy, or grant. The subsection di-
rects the Commission, unless otherwise authorized by law, not to
distribute special nuclear material after December 31, 1970, except
by sale, to any person possessing or operating a utilization facility
licensed under section 103 or I04b. if the material is for use in the
course of activities so licensed.
Subsection 53c. (1) thus gives the AEC authority to lease spe-
cial nuclear material to licensees engaged in the conversion and
fabrication of special nuclear material except in those circum-
stances where the converter or fabricator is also a person licensed
under section 103 or 104b. and the material involved is intended
for use in such person's activities licensed under section 103 or
104b.
This subsection would not, however, permit the Commission,
after December 31, 1970, to approve or allow the assignment or
transfer of a lease or the sublease of Government-owned special
nuclear material to a person possessing or operating a nuclear re-
actor under a section 103 or I04b. license for use in the course of
activities under such license. Thus, in circumstances where the
initial distribution of special nuclear material is by lease to a fuel
fabricator or converter, as permitted by this bill, the transfer of
such material, in its fabricated form, to the 103 or 104b. license
would have to be by sale. It is not the intent of the committee that
the Commission lease special nuclear material to a person whose
sole or principal function is to hold title to special nuclear material
(e.g., financial institutions) in circumstances where the user of
such material would otherwise be required to purchase such mate-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 677
rial by the provisions of this bill.
Subsection 53c. (1) would also require a person who possesses or
operates a utilization facility licensed under section 103 or 104b. to
[p. 22]
purchase by June 30, 1973, all special nuclear material previously
leased to such person by the Commission for use in the course of
the licensed activities. Any lease agreements in effect with such
licensees would, unless otherwise authorized by law, terminate on
the aforementioned date.
The Commission possesses authority under existing law to per-
mit licensees to pay on an installment or deferred payment basis
for special nuclear material purchased from the Commission. It
is expected that the Commission would permit persons licensed
under section 103 or 104b., who purchased special nuclear material
previously leased to them by the Commission to pay for such mate-
rial in installment payments, over a period of up to 5 years, with a
rate of interest equal to the rate of the charge established by the
Commission pursuant to subsection 53c. (4), in effect at the time
of the sale, for the use of special nuclear material distributed by
lease. The Government would retain a lien on the material sold,
and would require periodic payments of principal and interest on
the amounts due.
It is also expected that if the Commission elects to require li-
censees engaged in conversion and/or fabrication of special nu-
clear material to purchase such material after December 31, 1970,
the Commission would make available a deferred payment plan.
The deferred payment arrangements could assist in the main-
tenance of a fair competitive situation among fuel fabricators in-
sofar as the financing of special nuclear material inventories is
concerned. These arrangements would require the purchaser to
pay in full for the material purchased upon transfer of the ma-
terial to the ultimate user or within some specified period of time,
such as one year, from the date of the sale by the Commission. In
general, it is contemplated that the Commission would permit the
deferral of payments on principal for the entire period of fabrica-
tion. Interest on the deferred liability would be paid by the pur-
chaser at a rate not in excess of the rate of the charge established
by the Commission pursuant to subsection 53c.(4), in effect at the
time of the sale, for special nuclear material distributed by lease.
Finally, it is contemplated that, in connection with any such plan,
the Commission would accept, for appropriate credit against the
deferred liability, any unused material returned to the Commission
by the converter or fabricator.
It will be noted that the phrase "unless otherwise authorized by
-------
678 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
law" appears in the new subsection 53c. (1). The phrase would
apply to exceptions which might be authorized by law subsequent
to the enactment of the bill. It would also make clear that the
Commission's contractual commitments executed prior to the en-
actment of the bill will not be disturbed nor will the conduct of the
Commission's programs authorized under section 261 of the act
prior to the enactment of this bill be affected. Examples of the
latter categories would be the Commission's contracts entered into,
or to be entered into, under the third round or supplemental third
round of the Commission's cooperative power reactor demonstra-
tion program. Under these contracts the Commission undertakes
to lease without use charge the fuel materials required during the
term of the cooperative arrangement. In some cases, this time
may extend beyond June 30, 1973. Moreover, the Commission's
authority to furnish special nuclear material to its contractors and
subcontractors for the performance of work for the Commission,
under appropriate terms and conditions, would not be changed by
the proposed legislation.
[p. 23]
Subsection 53c. (2) directs the Commission to establish reason-
able sales prices for special nuclear material licensed and distrib-
uted by sale under section 53. The Commission could, of course,
establish different sales prices for different types of special nu-
clear material, or different chemical forms or isotopic composi-
tions of the same material. In the establishment of reasonable
sales prices for special nuclear material, it is expected that the
Commission will follow, to the extent feasible, the principles of
full cost recovery. The sales price for special nuclear material sold
pursuant to any lease with option to buy would not be less than the
Commission's sale price for comparable special nuclear material in
effect at the time of the sale of the special nuclear material pursu-
ant to the option.
Subsection 53c.(3) authorizes the Commission to enter into
long-term contracts to distribute special nuclear material to li-
censees, to repurchase special nuclear material purchased by li-
censees and partially consumed (including special nuclear material
purchased by fabricators and converters of special nuclear mate-
rial, which is no longer needed by them or is in excess of their
needs), and any uranium remaining after irradiation of special
nuclear material licensed and distributed by sale. The exercise
of this authority will assure licensees of the long-term availability
of special nuclear material. The authority will also authorize the
AEG, where necessary, to provide a market for unused or uncon-
sumed special nuclear material, since only a part of the fuel for a
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 679
nuclear reactor is consumed through fuel fabrication or conversion
or operation of the reactor. It is expected that this repurchase au-
thority would not be exercised generally once toll enrichment serv-
ices, as authorized by section 16 of this bill, become available.
The Commission would be authorized to repurchase special nuclear
material or uranium remaining after irradiation only if the spe-
cial nuclear material, of which the unconsumed material is a part,
had been distributed by the Commission under a contract of sale
providing for payment of the Commission's full sale price for the
special nuclear material. The Commission would not be author-
ized to repurchase special nuclear material obtained from the
Commission through a toll enrichment arrangement of the type
authorized by section 16 of this bill.
Such long-term contracts will constitute a commitment on the
Commission's part to produce and deliver special nuclear material
in the future, subject to such conditions as the Commission might
impose in the interests of the common defense and security or
otherwise. Such contracts will be subject to Presidential deter-
minations of the quantity of special nuclear material to be avail-
able for distribution by the Commission pursuant to section 53, in
accordance with section 41b. The obligations of the Commission
under these long-term contracts would be taken into account in the
Commission's annual recommendation to the President, pursuant
to section 41b., as to the quantities of special nuclear material to
be produced in Commission facilities that year.
Section 6 would also amend section 53 by designating the pres-
ent subsection 53c. as 53c. (4) and by adding the words "by lease"
after "distributed". This amendment would make it clear that
subsection 53c. (4) does not apply to special nuclear material dis-
tributed by sale. The subsection would also be amended to re-
quire that the Commission establish criteria in writing for the
determination of whether special nuclear material will be dis-
tributed by grant.
[p. 24]
Section 7 of the bill would amend subsection 53c. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 which relates to the basis for determining rea-
sonable charges for the use of special nuclear material. The
amendment would make it clear, consonant with other amend-
ments to the act made by this bill, that subsection 53d. applies only
to special nuclear material distributed to licensees by lease.
Section 7 would also amend paragraph (5) of subsection 53d. to
provide that, for leased material consumed in a licensed facility,
the charge, if any, would be equivalent to the Commission's estab-
lished sales price for similar material. This subsection now bases
-------
680
LEGAL COMPILATION—EADIATION
the consumption or "burnup" charge upon the cost of the material
to the Commission or the "average fair price" paid for the produc-
tion of such material, whichever is lower. This change is neces-
sary because of the amendments in section 11 of this bill which
would eliminate the requirement for payment of a "fair price" for
material produced by licensees as it now appears in section 56 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
Section 8 of the bill amends subsection 53e. by eliminating sub-
section 53e.(l) which states that "title to all special nuclear mate-
rial shall at all times be in the United States." This amendment
follows from the elimination by section 4 of the bill of the require-
ment of mandatory Government ownership of any special nuclear
material within the United States.
[p. 25]
COMPARISON OF JOINT COMMITTEE BILL WITH BILL AS SUBMITTED BY AEC
AEC BILL
Section 1
Section 2 of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended, is amended by de-
leting subsection 2b.
Section 2
Subsection h. of section 2 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is deleted.
Section 3
Subsection c. of section 3 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended to read as
follows:
"c. a program for Government
control of the possession, use, and
production of atomic energy and
special nuclear material, whether
owned by the Government or oth-
ers, so directed as to make the
maximum contribution to the com-
mon defense and security and the
national welfare, and to provide
continued assurance of the Gov-
ernment's ability to enter into and
enforce agreements with nations
or groups of nations for the con-
trol of special nuclear materials
and atomic weapons."
JOINT COMMITTEE BILL
Section 1
Same as section 1, AEC bill.
Section 2
Same as section 2, AEC bill.
Section 3
Same as section 3, AEC bill.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
681
Section 4
Section 52 of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended, is repealed. All
rights, title, and interest in and to any
special nuclear material vested in the
United States solely by virtue of the
provisions of the first sentence of such
section 52, and not by any other trans-
action authorized by the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
or other applicable law, are hereby
extinguished.
"(5) with respect to special nu-
clear material consumed in a fa-
cility licensed pursuant to section
103, the Commission shall make a
further charge equivalent to the
sale price for similar special nu-
clear material established by the
Commission in accordance with
subsection 53c. (1), and the Com-
mission may make such a charge
with respect to such material con-
sumed in a facility licensed pur-
suant to section 104."
Section 8
Subsection e. of section 53 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended by deleting sub-
section 53e. (1).
Section 9
Section 54 of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended, is amended by
adding the following sentences at the
end of section 54:
"The Commission may agree to re-
purchase any special nuclear material
distributed under a sale arrangement
pursuant to this section which is not
consumed in the course of the activities
conducted in accordance with the
agreement for cooperation, or any ura-
nium remaining after irradiation of
such special nuclear material, at a
repurchase price not to exceed the
Commission's sale price for comparable
special nuclear material or uranium
in effect at the time of delivery of such
material to the Commission. The
Section 4
Same as section 4, A EC bill.
[p. 33]
Section 8
Same as section 8, AEC bill.
Section 9
Same as section 9, AEC bill, except
for deletion of reference to section 103
in the last sentence. Also, the phrase
"through use of special nuclear mate-
rial" changed to "through the use of
special nuclear material".
-------
682 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
Commission may also agree to pur-
chase, consistent with and within the
period of the agreement for coopera-
tion, special nuclear material pro-
duced in a nuclear reactor located
outside the United States through
use of special nuclear material distrib-
uted pursuant to this section.***
[p. 37]
l.lt(2) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
H.R. REP. No. 1702, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (1964)
AMENDING THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954 TO
PROVIDE FOR PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF SPECIAL
NUCLEAR MATERIALS
AUGUST 5,1964.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. HOLIFIBLD, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 12228]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered H.R.
12228, an original committee bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended, and for other purposes, report favorably
thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
SUMMARY OF BILL
This bill, as reported by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
would amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to accomplish the
following principal purposes:
1. Termination of Mandatory Government Ownership of Special
Nuclear Materials (sec. 4).—The bill would repeal section 52 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 which requires mandatory Gov-
ernment ownership of all special nuclear material within or under
the jurisdiction of the United States. Provision for the continued
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 683
effective regulation and control of such materials is assured in
other sections of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended by
this bill.
2. Mandatory Private Ownership (sec. 6).—The bill would au-
thorize the Atomic Energy Commission to lease, sell, or grant
special nuclear material. However, unless otherwise authorized
by law, the Commission could not, after December 31, 1970, dis-
tribute special nuclear material except by sale to a person owning
or operating a nuclear power reactor if the material is intended
for use in such reactor. After June 30, 1973, unless otherwise
authorized by law, all special nuclear material previously leased to
a person owning or operating a nuclear power reactor for use in
such reactor, would have to be converted to private ownership,
unless otherwise authorized by law.
[p. 1]
Section 3 of the bill amends subsection 3c. of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 (the expression of the purposes of the act) to empha-
size that the elimination of the requirement for mandatory Gov-
ernment ownership of special nuclear material has no impact on
either the authority or the responsibility of the Atomic Energy
Commission to regulate the domestic use of special nuclear
material.
The amendment also emphasizes that the elimination of the re-
quirement for mandatory Government ownership will have no
impact on the Government's ability to enter into and enforce agree-
ments with nations or groups of nations for the control of special
nuclear materials and atomic weapons. The bill is not intended to
make any change in the act in this respect.
[p. 20]
Section 7 of the bill would amend subsection 53c. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 which relates to the basis for determining
reasonable charges for the u?e of special nuclear material. The
amendment would make it clear, consonant with other amend-
ments to the act made by this bill, that subsection 53d. applies only
to special nuclear material distributed to licensees by lease.
Section 7 would also amend paragraph (5) of subsection 53d.
to provide that, for leased material consumed in a licensed facility,
the charge, if any, would be equivalent to the Commission's estab-
lished sales price for similar material. This subsection now bases
the consumption or "burnup" charge upon the cost of the material
to the Commission or the "average fair price" paid for the produc-
tion of such material, whichever is lower. This change is neces-
sary because of the amendments in section 11 of this bill which
-------
684 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
would eliminate the requirement for payment of a "fair price" for
material produced by licensees as it now appears in section 56 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
Section 8 of the bill amends subsection 53e. by eliminating sub-
section 53e.(l) which states that "title to all special nuclear mate-
rial shall at all times be in the United States." This amendment
follows from the elimination by section 4 of the bill of the require-
ment of mandatory Government ownership of any special nuclear
material within the United States.
[p. 25]
l.lt(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 110 (1964)
l.lt(3)(a) Aug. 6: Passed Senate, p. 18434
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lt(3)(b) Aug. 18: Passed House, p. 20145
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lu TO AMEND SECTION 170 OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY
ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED
September 29,1965, P.L. 89-210, §§1-5,79 Stat. 855
AN ACT
To amend section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That subsection
170c. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended
to read as follows:
"c. The Commission shall, with respect to licenses issued
between August 30, 1954, and August 1, 1977, for which it
requires financial protection, agree to indemnify and hold
harmless the licensee and other persons indemnified, as their
interest may appear, from public liability arising from nu-
clear incidents which is in excess of the level of financial pro-
tection required of the licensee. The aggregate indemnity for
all persons indemnified in connection with each nuclear in-
cident shall not
[p. 855]
exceed $500,000,000 including the reasonable costs of
investigating and settling claims and defending suits for
damage: Provided, however, That this amount of indem-
nity shall be reduced by the amount that the financial pro-
tection required shall exceed $60,000,000. Such a contract of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 685
indemnification shall cover public liability arising out of or in
connection with the licensed activity. With respect to any
production or utilization facility for which a construction
permit is issued between August 30, 1954, and August 1, 1977,
the requirements of this subsection shall apply to any license
issued for such facility subsequent to August 1, 1977."
SEC. 2. The first two sentences of subsection 170 d. of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, are amended to read as
follows:
"In addition to any other authority the Commission may
have, the Commission is authorized until August 1, 1977, to
enter into agreements of indemnification with its contractors
for the construction or operation of production or utilization
facilities or other activities under contracts for the benefit of
the United States involving activities under the risk of public
liability for a substantial nuclear incident. In such agree-
ments of indemnification the Commission may require its
contractor to provide and maintain financial protection of
such a type and in such amounts as the Commission shall
determine to be appropriate to cover public liability arising
out of or in connection with the contractual activities, and
shall indemnify the persons indemnified against such claims
above the amount of the financial protection required, in the
amount of $500,000,000, including the reasonable costs of in-
vestigating and settling claims and defending suits for dam-
age in the aggregate for all persons indemnified in connection
with such contract and for each nuclear incident: Provided,
That this amount of indemnity shall be reduced by the amount
that the financial protection required shall exceed $60,000,000:
Provided further, That in the case of nuclear incidents oc-
curring outside the United States, the amount of the indem-
nity provided by the Commission shall not exceed
$100,000,000."
SEC. 3. The first sentence of subsection 170 e. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended to read as follows:
"The aggregate liability for a single nuclear incident of per-
sons indemnified, including the reasonable costs of investigat-
ing and settling claims and defending suits for damage, shall
not exceed the sum of $500,000,000 together with the amount
of financial protection required of the licensee or contractor:
Provided, hoivever, That such aggregate liability shall in no
event exceed the sum of $560,000,000: Provided further, That
with respect to any nuclear incident occurring outside of the
United States to which an agreement of indemnification en-
-------
686 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
tered into under the provisions of subsection 170 d. is appli-
cable, such aggregate liability shall not exceed the amount of
$100,000,000 together with the amount of financial protection
required of the contractor."
SEC. 4. Subsection 170 k. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended by striking out the date "August 1, 1967"
wherever it appears and inserting in lieu thereof the date "August
1, 1977".
SEC. 5. Subsection 170 1. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended to read as follows:
"1. The Commission is authorized until August 1, 1977, to
enter into an agreement of indemnification with any person
engaged in the design, development, construction, operation,
repair, and maintenance or use of the nuclear-powered ship
authorized by section 716 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936,
and designated the 'nuclear ship Savannah'. In any such
agreement of indemnification the
[p. 856]
Commission may require such person to provide and
maintain financial protection of such a type and in such
amounts as the Commission shall determine to be ap-
propriate to cover public liability arising from a nuclear
incident in connection with such design, development,
construction, operation, repair, maintenance or use and
shall indemnify the person indemnified against such claims
above the amount of the financial protection required, in the
amount of $500,000,000 including the reasonable costs of in-
vestigating and settling claims and defending suits for dam-
age in the aggregate for all persons indemnified in connection
with each nuclear incident: Provided, That this amount of
indemnity shall be reduced by the amount that the financial
protection required shall exceed $60,000,000."
Approved September 29, 1965.
[p. 857]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 687
l.lu(l) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
S. EEP. No. 650, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1865)
EXTENDING AND AMENDING THE PRICE-ANDERSON
INDEMNITY PROVISIONS OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY
ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED
AUGUST 26, 1965.—Oidered to be printed
Mr. PASTORE, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, sub-
mitted the following
REPORT
[To accompa ly S. 2042]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered S.
2042, to amend section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, reports favorably thereon with two amendments and rec-
ommends that the bill do pass.
The amendments to the bill adopted by the Joint Committee are
as follows:
On page 5, line 8, insert a comma between the word "required"
and the word "in".
On page 5, line 10, insert "in the aggregate for all persons indem-
nified in.connection with each nuclear incident" between the word
"damage" and the colon.
These amendments adopted by the Joint Committee are technical
amendments.
SUMMARY OF THE BILL
The bill, as recommended by the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy, would amend section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, to accomplish the following principal purposes:
(1) The bill would extend the effective period of the Price-
Anderson indemnity provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, for an adritional 10 years, from August 1,
1967, to August 1, 1977.
(2) The bill would require a decrease in the $500 million
governmental indemnity afforded under the Price-Anderson
indemnity provisions corresponding to the amount whereby
the financial protection required of an AEC licensee or con-
-------
688 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
tractor exceeds the amount of commercial nuclear liability in-
surance currently available, i.e., $60 million.
[p. 1]
(3) The bill would provide that in no event would the lia-
bility of all persons who might be liable for public liability
arising from a single nuclear incident exceed $560 million, i.e.,
the maximum amount of governmental indemnity which could
be afforded under the Price-Anderson indemnity provisions,
as they would be amended by the bill, together with the maxi-
mum amount of financial protection required in accordance
with these indemnity provisions.
The foregoing are the main features of the proposed legislation.
An explanation of the policy supporting the major provisions of
this bill is found in the section of this report entitled "Committee
Comments." A detailed legal analysis of the entire bill is found in
the section of this report entitled "Section-by-Section Analysis."
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
H.R. 8496 and S. 2042, identical bills to extend and amend the
Price-Anderson indemnity provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, were introduced on May 26, 1965, by Congress-
man Melvin Price and Senator Clinton P. Anderson. The introduc-
tion of these bills followed many months of informal meetings and
discussions among members of the Joint Committee, the Atomic
Energy Commission, and their staffs, and representatives of pri-
vate industry. Among the topics considered during these meetings
was a draft of a study of the Price-Anderson Indemnity Act which
AEG had commenced in 1964 to determine whether the act should
be extended to licenses issued and contracts executed after August
1, 1967. The AEC's final report of this study, as submitted to the
Joint Committee, recommended a simple extension of the Price-
Anderson indemnity provisions for 10 years, to August 1, 1977.
The AEC also recommended further study of a number of problems
related to this legislation.
Public hearings on these bills were held on June 22-24, 1965, be-
fore the Subcommittee on legislation of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy, as summarized in the next section of this report.
The Subcommittee on Legislation met in executive session on
August 26, 1965, and after full discussion voted without dissent to
approve H.R. 8496 and S. 2042, with two technical amendments.
On August 26, 1965, the full committee met to consider these bills,
and after careful consideration voted unanimously to report them
out with the technical amendments approved by the Subcommittee
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 689
on Legislation, together with a recommendation that these bills do
pass. The committee also adopted this report on H.R. 8496 and S.
2042.
HEARINGS
Public hearings on H.R. 8496 and S. 2042 were held on June
22-24, 1965, before the Joint Committee's Subcommittee on Legis-
lation.
The following witnesses testified on behalf of the U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission:
James T. Ramey, Commissioner.
John G. Palfrey, Commissioner.
Joseph F. Hennessey, General Counsel.
Robert Lowenstein, Assistant Director of Regulation.
[p. 2]
Witnesses presenting the views of industry and the public are
listed below in order of appearance:
American Public Power Association: Lawrrence Hobart, di-
rector, Atomic Energy Service.
Department of Water and Power, City of Los Angeles: Mel
Frankel, nuclear engineer.
Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.: Francis E. Drake, vice
president.
Florida Power & Light Co.: George C. Kinsman, vice presi-
dent.
Southern California Edison Co.: James Davenport, execu-
tive vice president; William Gould, vice president; Alan M.
Nedry, special counsel.
Philadelphia Electric Co.: R. G. Rincliffe, chairman of the
board.
Westinghouse Electric Corp.: Charles H. Weaver, vice pres- (
ident; A. M. Pitcher, assistant general counsel.
General Electric Co.: James F. Young, vice president;
William F. Kennedy, counsel, Atomic Products Division.
Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Co.: Henry C. Nickel,
general manager, Atomic Energy Division; Loren K. Olson,
special counsel, Atomic Energy Division.
General Dynamics Corp.: Sam J. Farmer, vice president
and counsel, General Atomic Division.
Martin-Marietta Corp.: Malcolm A. Maclntyre, vice presi-
dent, also chairman of the board of Isochem, Inc.; Ross G.
MacAuley, counsel.
-------
690 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
Babcock & Wilcox Co.: R. H. Harrison, vice president.
United Nuclear Corp.: Walter A. Hamilton, vice president.
National Coal Association: Brice O'Brien, general counsel.
National Coal Policy Conference, Inc.: Joseph E. Moody,
president; George Weil, consultant.
Peabody Coal Co.: W. G. Blewett, vice president.
Public Service Co. of Colorado: Robert T. Person, president.
Adolph J. Ackerman, consulting engineer, Madison, Wis.
Nuclear Energy Liability Insurance Association: DeRoy C.
Thomas, counsel, Hartford Insurance Group, also representing
NELIA; Francis X. Boylan, general manager.
Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters: Ashley St.
Clair.
Mutual Atomic Energy Reinsurance Pool: Ashley St. Clair.
Nuclear Energy Property Insurance Association: H. Sum-
ner Stanley, assistant general manager.
David F. Cavers, Fessenden professor of law, Harvard Law
School.
Edison Electric Institute: James H. Campbell, member,
Policy Committee on Atomic Power; John J. Kearney, profes-
sional staff.
The hearings were published by the Joint Committee under the
title "Proposed Extension of AEC Indemnity Legislation."
[p. 3]
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
A. BACKGROUND
1. Enactment of the Price-Anderson legislation
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 was enacted in the hope and be-
lief that the substantial entry of private industry into the atomic
energy program would speed the further development of the peace-
• ful uses of atomic energy, a major policy goal of the United States.
In recognition of the potential hazards, as well as the benefits, flow-
ing from the peaceful vises of atomic energy, the act established a
comprehensive regulatory program to assure that the health and
safety of employees and the public would be adequately protected.
Shortly after the passage of this legislation it became apparent
that the problem of potential liability and the inability to obtain
adequate insurance from commercial sources in connection with the
operation of nuclear reactors constituted a major obstacle to
further private industrial participation in this program. This was
true notwithstanding that the experts agreed the likelihood of a
major reactor accident was exceedingly low. The Joint Committee,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 691
the AEC, and private industry conducted a series of meeting's and
hearings on this subject extending over a period of 2 years. The
result was the enactment of Public Law 85-256, on September 2,
1957, as an amendment to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. This
law became known as the Price-Anderson Act in recognition of its
sponsorship by two members of the Joint Committee, Congressman
Melvin Price and Senator Clinton P. Anderson.
The Price-Anderson Act was intended to accomplish two princi-
pal purposes:
First, to protect the public by assuring the availability of
funds for the payment of claims arising from a catastrophic
nuclear incident;
Second, to remove a deterrent to private industrial partici-
pation in the atomic energy program posed by the threat of
tremendous potential liability claims.
The basic approach of the Price-Anderson Act with respect to
AEC's reactor licensees was to require such licensees to furnish
financial protection (in the form of nuclear liability insurance or
otherwise) to cover public liability claims against the licensee and
all others who might be liable for a nuclear incident; to require the
AEC to indemnify the licensee and all others who might be liable
in the amount of $500 million over and above the financial protec-
tion required; and to limit the liability of all persons who might be
liable for a nuclear incident to the sum of the financial protection
required plus the AEC's $500 million indemnity. The act provided
a similar statutory pattern applicable to certain of AEC's licensees
not operating reactors, and to certain AEC contractors.
The Price-Anderson Act also contained provisions to improve the
AEC's procedures for regulating reactor licensees, such as estab-
lishment of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
(ACRS) as a statutory body, requirement of ACRS review of
power and test reactor license applications, and requirement of
mandatory hearings on power and test reactor license applications.
This manifested the continuing concern of the Joint Committee
and Congress with the necessity for assuring the effectiveness of
the national regulatory pro-
[p. 4]
gram for protecting the health and safety of employees and the
public against atomic energy hazards. The inclusion of these
provisions in the statute also reflected the intimate relationship
which existed between Congress' concern for prevention of reactor
-------
692 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
accidents and the indemnity provisions of the Price-Anderson
legislation.
2. Effectiveness of the Price-Anderson legislation
The Price-Anderson Act has clearly accomplished the second
purpose for which it was enacted—removal of the deterrent to
private industrial participation in the atomic energy program.
This is obvious from the growth of the nuclear power industry and
the huge increase in the scope and complexity of commercial nu-
clear energy activities. For example, when the Price-Anderson
Act was passed in September 1957 this country had no installed
commercial nuclear electric generating capacity. Today, reactors
in operation in our country have a cumulative electrical capacity of
about 1 million kilowatts. Many more power and prototype re-
actors are in the planning or construction stage.
The act has also fulfilled its primary purpose of providing as-
surance that funds will be made available to satisfy public liability
claims arising from a catastrophic nuclear incident. However, as
anticipated, there has been no such incident since the Price-
Anderson Act was passed. In fact, only one claim has thus far
been filed under a nuclear energy liability policy furnished as fi-
nancial protection. This claim was for $3,500 and involved an
incident in the transportation of spent fuel elements. For this
reason, it is not possible to demonstrate with the same assurance
that the public would receive prompt and adequate financial com-
pensation in the event of a major nuclear incident. Correspond-
ingly, there has been no demonstration of a serious weakness in the
act or its administration.
3. Duration of Price-Anderson legislation and need for extension
The indemnity provisions of the Price-Anderson Act apply only
to AEC licenses issued and contracts executed prior to August 1,
1967. In this connection, the Joint Committee's report recom-
mending passage of the original act stated:
The provisions of this bill provide governmental indemnifi-
cations to those licensees who obtain their licenses within the
next 10 years. The indemnification agreement is to run for
the life of the license. During the 10-year period it is hoped
that there will be enough experience gained so that the prob-
lems of reactor safety will be to a great extent solved and the
insurance people will have had experience on which to base a
sound program of their own.
When this law was enacted, it was understood that the Joint Com-
mittee would undertake a comprehensive review of this subject
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 693
toward the end of the 10-year life of the act to determine whether
the need for this legislation still obtained. In anticipation of this
review, the AEC undertook a detailed study of the Price-Anderson
Indemnity Act and its administration.1
The Joint Committee has now completed its study of the problem
and has concluded that the act should be extended for 10 years with
appropriate amendments. Succeeding sections of this report set
forth
[p. 5]
the basis for the committee's decision and its recommendations
for further action.
B. REASONS FOR EXTENSION OF THE PRICE-ANDERSON LEGISLATION
1. Protection of the public
In the almost 8 years that have elapsed since passage of the
Price-Anderson Act, an impressive amount of operating data has
been collected with respect to nuclear reactors and other atomic
facilities. When added to the experience accumulated with the
Government-owned reactors initially built, a total of about 600
reactor-years of operation have already taken place with relatively
large reactors in the United States. Since the advent of the atomic
age over 20 years ago, there has not been an accident in the United
States at a nuclear reactor or other atomic energy installation
which presented a radiation hazard to the general public.
The regulatory review process employed in the atomic energy
program is such that no reactor would be licensed if there were a
reasonable likelihood that its operation might result in an accident
of the severity contemplated by the Price-Anderson legislation.
However, the experience in this field is not yet sufficiently great
nor the technology sufficiently developed, that it is possible to deny
the theoretical possibility of such an accident. Thus, the AEC has
recently reiterated that—
it is possible to postulate extremely unlikely, theoretical nuclear
accidents which, under certain circumstances, conceivably
could cause damage considerably in excess of $60 million—
i.e., the maximum amount of nuclear liability insurance currently
available from commercial sources.-1
Accordingly, the principal reason for enacting the Price-
1 See Joint Committee on Atomic Energy punt "Selected Matei ials on Atomic Eneigy Indemnity
Legislation," June 1965, p. 1.
• See Joint Committee on Atomic Energy healings, "Pioposed Extension of AEC Indemnity
Legislation," June 22, 23, and 24. 1965, p. 6.
-------
694 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
Anderson legislation—the need to assure the availability of funds
for the payment of claims arising out of a catastrophic nuclear
incident—still persists.
In this connection, the committee has carefully considered the
subject of the limitation of liability which is contained in the Price-
Anderson legislation. Under the bill recommended by the com-
mittee, this limitation would continue to be set at the total amount
of financial protection required plus the governmental indemnity,
but in no event to exceed $560 million. It is the committee's view
that this limitation does not, as a practical matter, detract from
the public protection afforded by this legislation. In the first place,
the likelihood of an accident occurring which would result in claims
exceeding the sum of the financial protection required and the gov-
ernmental indemnity is exceedingly remote, albeit theoretically
possible. Perhaps more important, in the event of a national dis-
aster of this magnitude, it is obvious that Congress would have to
review the problem and take appropriate action. The history of
other natural or manmade disasters, such as the Texas City inci-
dent, bears this out. The limitation of liability serves primarily as
a device for
[p. 6],
facilitating further congressional review of such a situation,
rather than an ultimate bar to further relief of the public.3
The committee is also of the view that the possible exposure of
reactor operators and others to liability beyond the sum of the
financial protection required and the Government's indemnity
would not add a significant incentive to the safe operation of nu-
clear facilities. In the years since the Price-Anderson legislation
was enacted, neither the AEC, the Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safeguards, nor the Joint Committee has seen evidence that this
legislation has had the effect of lessening the safety consciousness
of the nuclear industry. The committee will continue its scrutiny
: The fact that Congress recognized this point is indicated clearly by the following statements
on pp. 21 and '22 in the Joint Committee's report on the oiigmal Price-Andeison bills:
"* * f the limit of the Commission's responsibility under these [indemnity] agreements is to
be $500 million. This limit could be subject to upwaid revision by the Congress in the event of any
one paiticular incident in which, after furthei congressional study, the Congress felt moie ap-
propriations would be in order.
*******
"Subsec. e limits the liability of the persons indemnified for each nuclear incident to $500 mil-
lion, together with the amount of financial protection requiied. Of couise, Congress can change
this act at any time aftei any particular incident. The Joint Committee wanted to be sure that
any such changes in the act would be consideied by it in the light of the particular incident."
(See S. Kept. 296, 85th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 21 and 22.)
'See Joint Committee on Atomic Energy healings, "Proposed Extension of AEC Indemnity
Legislation," June 22, 23, and 24. 1965.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 695
of this program to assure that safety of operations of commercial
nuclear facilities is a paramount consideration.
Finally, the committee agrees with the views expressed by the
Attorney General and the General Counsel of the AEC, in response
to an inquiry by the committee, that the limitation of liability pro-
visions of the Price-Anderson legislation, as originally enacted and
as they would be amended by the bill recommended by the com-
mittee, are constitutionally permissible.1 The authority of the
Federal Government to enact such provisions flows from, among
other sources, the interstate commerce, war, and bankruptcy pow-
ers clauses of the Constitution.
2. Removal of deterrent to industrial participation in the atomic
energy program
As indicated in the preceding section of this report, this country
has made great strides in the development of civilian nuclear power
during the last 8 years. Spurred on by Government encourage-
ment and assistance, there have been extraordinary reductions in
the cost of nuclear power. These developments have, in turn, pro-
duced a salutary competitive response from the fossil fuel and fuel
transportation industries, with a resulting savings in power costs
to the American taxpayers that has been estimated at $1 billion per
year. It is acknowledged that no commercial nuclear powerplant
is yet producing electricity at costs competitive with conventional
plants, and much development work remains. However, it is clear
that nuclear power is destined to become a major source of energy
to meet our growing requirements for electricity, complementing
our fossil fuels for which very significant increases in requirements
are also predicted.
It is equally clear that this country will increasingly depend upon
the efforts of industry—including utilities, equipment manufac-
turers, and other suppliers—to carry forward the development of
nuclear power. Now, perhaps even more than in 1957, it is es-
sential to insure that private industrial activity in the atomic
energy program continue and expand, coincidentally with a con-
centration of Government resources on the more advanced concepts
of nuclear power production.
[P- ?]
Another relevant consideration is the dynamic nature of our
national reactor development program. Although some power
reactor types—the low conversion ratio light water reactors—are
now being offered by manufacturers on a competitive basis with
fossil-fuel plants, the long-range requirements of this program call
for continued cooperation between Government and industry in
-------
696 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
the development of the more advanced converter and breeder type
reactors which hold the promise of a more effective utilization of
nuclear fuel resources. The development of some of these more
advanced reactors is at roughly the same stage today as was the
case with low conversion ratio light water reactors in 1957, and
this development should similarly be encouraged through extension
of the Price-Anderson legislation.
Although the committee regards the Price-Anderson legislation
as a necessary building block for a healthy, progressive nuclear
industry, the committee does not consider the legislation to be a
subsidy for that industry, as this term is commonly understood.
To date, no Government money has ever been expended under a
Price-Anderson indemnity agreement with an AEC licensee. The
costs of administration of this program have been nominal, and
have been more than repaid through indemnity fees paid by AEC
licensees. In fact, through June 30, 1965, the AEC has already
received almost $343,000 in indemnity fees and these fees are
expected to increase substantially in the future.
This legislation is also consistent with the basic principles under-
lying other Federal programs such as, for example, reclamation
projects and improvement of the inland waterways of our Nation.
In determining the value of these programs, the costs to the Fed-
eral Government of the improvements must be measured against
the savings to the American people which the improvements pro-
duce. As has already been stated, the savings to the American
taxpayer resulting from the nuclear power program have been
estimated at $1 billion per year, and the Price-Anderson indemnity
legislation has thus far cost the Government nothing.
It is true that the Government's indemnity is valuable and is
provided at a charge which is presumably much lower than the
charge which would be assessed for "commercial" insurance if
such insurance were available. However, the fundamental reason
why the indemnity is necessary is that there is yet not enough ex-
perience on which to base a firm judgment on the likelihood of the
indemnity ever being utilized. Expert opinion holds this indemnity
almost certainly will never be utilized. If this opinion eventually
is proven correct, then there surely is no Government subsidy
involved here, and in fact power reactor operators would have been
paying for protection above that which is necessary.
Moreover, the basic financial protection for which these reactor
operators are paying nuclear liability insurance involves no Gov-
ernment subsidy. Under the Price-Anderson Act, operators of
large power reactors must carry the maximum amount of such
insurance available from private sources. The premiums for this
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 697
insurance are currently much higher than for conventional liability
insurance. For example, according to testimony presented to the
committee the annual liability insurance premiums plus indemnity
fee for a 450,000 electrical kilowatt nuclear plant amount to over
$361,000, versus about $6,500 for a conventional plant of the same
capacity, without taking into consideration the partial refunds of
premiums for nuclear
[P. 8]
liability insurance which is expected to be made under the nuclear
insurance pools' industry credit rating plan.5
Based upon the evidence and testimony presented to the com-
mittee, the committee has concluded that the potential threat of
uninsurable liability arising out of nuclear activities, as discussed
in the preceding section of this report, would effectively deter
necessary industrial participation in this program. Every witness
representing the nuclear industry, who testified at the committee's
hearings in June, supported this view. The deterrent force of this
threat, based as it is on a lack of sufficient operating experience to
form an adequate judgment of risk, is probably as great today as it
was in 1957. The best solution to this problem is an extension and
amendment of the Price-Anderson legislation, as recommended in
this report.
3. Indemnity for AEC's contractors
The Price-Anderson Act contains provisions which enable the
AEC to treat its contractors generally in the same fashion as its
licensees. The AEC has testified in favor of an extension of these
provisions, as have AEC contractors. According to the AEC, the
extraordinary financial risks which concerned many of the AEC's
contractors in the early days of the atomic energy program con-
tinue to exist today and result from basically the same contractual
activities. AEC also has reported that:
It would appear that the most effective and economic form
of financial protection which can be utilized to satisfy the
needs of the Commission, the industry, and the public is that
presently available under the Price-Anderson Act."
The committee agrees that the contractor indemnity provisions
of the Price-Anderson Act have operated well and should be ex-
tended until August 1, 1977, subject to the qualification that the
Government's indemnity for its contractors should be reduced by
r> See Joint Committee on Atomic Energy hearings, "Proposed Extension of AEC Indemnity
Legislation," June 22, 23, and 24, 1965, p. 64.
''See Joint Committee on Atomic Eneigy print, "Selected Matei ials on Atomic Energy In-
demnity Legislation," June 1965, p. 49.
-------
698 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
the amount that the financial protection, if any, required of such
contractors shall exceed $60 million.
4. Need for long-range planning; period of extension of Price-
Anderson legislation
The bill recommended by this committee would provide for a
10-year extension of the Price-Anderson legislation from August 1,
1967, to August 1, 1977, subject to the amendments discussed un-
der the heading "Increased Private Insurance Capacity and Reduc-
tion of Governmental Indemnity." The committee is of the view
that it is important for Congress to act this year to extend the
Price-Anderson legislation, notwithstanding this law will not ex-
pire as to new AEC licenses and contracts until August 1, 1967.
The AEC comprehensively reviewed this subject in its study of the
Price-Anderson Indemnity Act, and the committee's 3 days of
public hearings in June 1965 provided an opportunity for the
matter to be thoroughly aired. Every individual and organization
that requested permission to testify was invited to appear before
the committee. It was repeatedly brought out during these hear-
ings that the leadtime required for planning and construction of a
nuclear powerplant requires
[P. 9]
a utility company to make its decisions on this matter several years
in advance. The existence of Price-Anderson legislation has been
cited as an indispensable element in such planning. Accordingly,
to avoid an unwarranted disruption of this planning process, the
Price-Anderson legislation should be extended without delay.
The committee further believes that 10 years is the most reason-
able period for extension of this legislation. As was pointed out
during the hearings, the total number of reactor-years of operation
with relatively large reactors in the United States expected to be
experienced by 1977 (2,400) is about four times the total number
of reactor-years of operation experienced to date. In turn the cur-
rent annual level of accumulation of reactor-years of experience is
greater than all such experience existent in 1957. It has been
estimated that by 1970 there will be about 5 million kilowatts of
installed nuclear capacity, which may increase to 60-90 million
kilowatts by 1980. Between now and 1980, estimates indicate that
about 70 to 150 atomic powerplants of 500 to 1,000 megawatts
capacity will be built.7
Thus, by 1977 a significant amount of data will have been ac-
cumulated, which should enable the industry and Congress to assess
7 See Joint Committee on Atomic Energy hearings, "Proposed Extension of AEC Indemnity
Legislation," June 22, 23, and 24, 1965, pp. 22 and 88.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 699
much more accurately the likelihood of a major nuclear incident
and the insurance requirements of the nuclear industry. It should
also be recognized that about 5 years are required for one cycle of
design to operation experience for a reactor. The committee fur-
ther agrees in principle with the AEC's decision to augment efforts
and redirect emphasis to define and develop improvements in re-
actor plant design and capability of critical systems and engineered
safeguards. This effort is intended to obtain the accumulation of
meaningful experience with respect to capability and reliability of
important safety systems.
These developments, in conjunction with the expected increase
in the capacity of the nuclear liability and property insurance
pools, should provide the basis for another critical evaluation of
this subject toward the end of the proposed period of extension.
The committee is keenly aware that programs involving Govern-
ment participation or assistance become deeply enmeshed in the
economic fabric of our society with the passage of time, and cor-
respondingly are difficult to eliminate. As is more fully discussed
in the next section of this report, the committee is also determined
to place the nuclear liability insurance program on a normal com-
mercial basis as soon as is practicable. Spurred on by the commit-
tee's recommendations, a number of important steps have been
taken in that direction. It is the hope and belief of the committee
that ultimately there will no longer be any need for the special
indemnification provisions afforded by the Price-Anderson Act.
C. INCREASED PRIVATE INSURANCE CAPACITY AND REDUCTION OF
GOVERNMENTAL INDEMNITY
The bill recommended by the committee would provide that the
amount of the Government's indemnity for certain licensees and
contractors (currently $500 million) shall be reduced by the amount
that the financial protection required shall exceed $60 million (the
maximum amount of nuclear liability insurance currently available
[p. 10]
from private sources). The act's present requirement that the
operators of large licensed power reactors shall maintain the maxi-
mum amount of financial protection available from private sources
(i.e., nuclear liability insurance) would remain unchanged. Thus,
under this bill, the Government's participation in the total fund
available to satisfy public liability claims would be reduced as
private insurance assumes an increasingly larger share of this
fund. However, the maximum protection available to the public
at this time—$560 million—would remain unchanged. Although
-------
700 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
there is no intention by this bill to establish the sum of $560 million
as the measure of risk of a larg-e power reactor, there is no reason-
able basis established yet for lowering the total amount of protec-
tion for the public now afforded for such a reactor.
The provision in this bill for reduction of the Government's
indemnity represents a significant step toward normalizing the
role of insurance in the nuclear power business. The bill also
differs in this respect from the approach recommended by the AEG,
which had proposed in its study the Price-Anderson Act simply be
extended for 10 years. However, this committee innovation has
the full support of the AEG.
This provision of the bill is consistent with the recommendations
of the present chairman of the Joint Committee, Congressman
Chet Holifield, which were made during the hearings in May 1964
on a proposed amendment to the Price-Anderson Act, and repeated
last fall in a statement to a group of representatives of the nuclear
industry. Chairman Holifield pointed out that, based upon the
nuclear industry's excellent safety record and experience gained to
date, the insurance industry should be able to increase the insur-
ance coverage available to the nuclear industry from the current
$60 million, which has prevailed virtually from the inception of the
Price-Anderson legislation, to a figure in the neighborhood of $100
million.
At the urging of the Joint Committee, representatives of the
two nuclear liability insurance pools canvassed the industry to ob-
tain increased subscriptions leading to a larger overall capacity.
According to testimony presented to the committee by the insurance
representatives, as a result of this canvass the two liability pools
will be able, as of January 1, 1966, to offer an aggregate capacity of
$74 million per nuclear facility. This additional $14 million rep-
resents about a 25-percent increase over the $60 million aggregate
capacity currently available. However, the increased amount is
still not sufficient to protect the public and industry from the theo-
retical consequences of a major accident, and thus is not sufficient
to eliminate the need for a continuance of the Price-Anderson in-
demnity legislation. (As noted below, representatives of the nu-
clear insurance industry have indicated their intention that the
aggregate capacity of the two liability pools will be increased in
stages to $100 million by 1975.)
When this increased amount of insurance becomes available,
currently licensed reactors with a rated capacity of 100,000 elec-
trical kilowatts or more will be required to carry $74 million of
coverage, in lieu of the $60 million presently required. Under the
provisions of the bill recommended by the committee, the Govern-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 701
ment's $500 million indemnity now afforded for such facilities
would correspondingly be reduced to $486 million.
[p. HI
The committee understands that it is not practicable for the
insurance industry to provide now for an even larger share of the
total requirements of the nuclear industry for third-party liability
protection. Nevertheless, it must be recognized that the insurance
industry has provided coverage for the nuclear industry in unprece-
dented amounts and forms. There are, moreover, certain reasons
which help to explain the inability at this time of the insurance
industry to achieve the goal set by the committee.
Perhaps the most important of these is the small number of
operating reactors, which results in an inadequate spread of risk
from the standpoint of the insurers.
Since the inception of the nuclear liability insurance program,
the insurance pools have been able to amass a fund wThich it is esti-
mated will total about $8.4 million by the end of 1965, as a reserve
to cover a possible nuclear incident. This fund is, however, ex-
pected to grow substantially over the years as the nuclear power
industry expands, thereby providing a more adequate basis for a
significantly increased insurance capacity.
In this connection, representatives of the two nuclear liability in-
surance pools testified as follows at the committee's hearings:
However, the capacity presently amassed should not be
considered the total limit available from casualty insurers for
the next 10 years. We are convinced that as the nuclear in-
dustry develops and grows, and the present Atomic Energy
Commission projections become realities, additional amounts
of capacity will be available. Based upon the Commission
forecast and assuming a continuation of premium develop-
ment predicated upon 1965 standards, we have estimated that
our annual premium for 1970 will be approximately $4,300,000
and for 1975, $9,500,000. Assuming continuation of virtually
loss-free experience, it is our estimate that our reserve fund
will be $20 million by 1970 and $40 million by 1975. Given
these figures, it is quite likely that by 1975 the pools will be
able to offer the $100 million capacity suggested by Chairman
Holifield in his speech.
In order to reach the desired capacity, it is our plan to
periodically test the insurance market in light of expanded
nuclear development in order to increase our existing capacity.
-------
702 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
In our judgment, such periodic survey should .be made every
2 or 3 years.8
The committee is encouraged by this expressed willingness of the
insurance industry to increase its coverage for the nuclear indus-
try. Assuming the expected growth of this industry takes place,
and that the industry's exceedingly good safety record continues,
it is possible under the terms of the bill recommended by the com-
mittee to foresee a step-by-step withdrawal of the Government
from the nuclear indemnity program for licensees. At some point, it
is to be hoped that complete reliance could be placed upon the pri-
vate insurance market to provide coverage for this industry. This
is the ultimate goal which the committee believes can, and will, be
achieved. For the present, the committee believes extension of the
Price-Anderson indemnity provisions is justified on the basis of
(1) overall benefits
[p. 12]
to the public resulting from competition between nuclear and fossil
fuel powerplants and (2) the development of a new source of
basic energy for this and future generations.
D. OTHER IMPORTANT POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
1. Improving financial protection of the public
One of the most significant matters which emerged from the
Joint Committee's review of a proposed extension of the Price-
Anderson legislation, is the need for further consideration of the
means by which persons suffering damage from a nuclear incident
may obtain rapid and adequate financial compensation. There has
never been an opportunity to judge how effectively the Price-
Anderson statutory and administrative system operates after a
major nuclear incident, and the committee, of course, hopes that
there never will be. However, with the expected growth of the
nuclear industry, prudence dictates that serious attention be de-
voted to this subject.
In the AEC's study of the Price-Anderson Act, and during the
hearings on the bills to extend and amend this legislation, several
areas were highlighted which warrant review by the executive and
legislative branches. Among these are:
(«) The adequacy of State tort law applicable to nuclear
incidents, and the desirability of amending the Price-
Anderson Act to establish the basis of liability for such in-
s See Joint Committee on Atomic Energy hearings, "Proposed Extension of AEC Indemnity
Legislation," June 22, 23, and 24, 1965, p. 179.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 703
cidents and to assure an effective means of consolidation of
suits resulting therefrom;
(b) The adequacy of State statutes of limitation applicable
to claims based upon radiation injuries, taking into account
delayed manifestations of such injuries; and
(r) The problem of processing radiation injury cases, in-
cluding the determination of causal relationships.
These subjects are complex and involve many uncertainties and
matters of judgment. The ramifications of decisions made in these
areas would extend beyond the scope of the nuclear energy
program.
This committee has always been vitally concerned with protect-
ing the health and safety of the public and employees from the
potential hazards which accompany the beneficial applications of
nuclear energy. The committee is equally determined that the
promise to the public, contained in the Price-Anderson Act, will
not prove to be an illusory one. It is the clear intent of this
legislation that if a member of the public ever is injured by a
nuclear incident, he will not be subjected to a series of substantive
and procedural hurdles which would prevent the speedy satisfac-
tion of a legitimate claim.
With that objective in mind, the committee plans to continue to
inquire into possible means of further assuring that the public
will receive prompt and adequate financial compensation for any
damage resulting from potential nuclear hazards. Among other
things, the committee expects to conduct one or more hearings on
this subject as early as practicable. Such hearings may well in-
dicate the need for further legislative action by Congress.
2. Transportation problems
Over the past several years the Joint Committee has on numer-
ous occasions reviewed the special problems applicable to possible
nuclear incidents involving transportation of radioactive material.
As indi-
[p. 13]
cated in the AEC's study of the Price-Anderson Indemnity
Act, a number of the problems which ha\e arisen in this area have
been resolved, but others remain outstanding. Amendments to the
Price-Anderson Act have also been suggested at various times to
effect greater protection to carriers and other transportation
agencies.
The committee agrees with the AEC's recommendation that
further legislation on this subject is not warranted at this time.
However, the possibility that further legislation may be needed if
-------
704 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
existing problems cannot otherwise be resolved, should not be ex-
cluded. The Joint Committee understands that the AEC will
specifically report on this matter in its next annual report under
the Price-Anderson Act and the committee shall follow develop-
ments in this area closely.
3. International and maritime indemnity problems
There is little reason to doubt that the problems of third-party
liability involving international and maritime nuclear energy
transactions will become more pronounced with time, in the ab-
sence of effective international agreements covering these subjects.
There are many unresolved problems for which solutions must
be found before such agreements can be effected. This calls for
continuing cooperation between the executive and legislative
branches of the Government, working together with American
industry. The committee also notes that the primary reason for
the unwillingness of the United States to execute the Brussels con-
vention, dealing with the liability of operators of nuclear ships, is
because the convention includes nuclear warships.
The AEC's study of the Price-Anderson Indemnity Act con-
tained a useful summary of the efforts to reach acceptable inter-
national agreements in these areas. The committee agrees that
consideration of these matters should not delay action on the ex-
tension of this legislation.
B. CONCLUSION
The Price-Anderson Act clearly is one of the most important
pieces of legislation applicable to the nuclear industry. The com-
mittee believes this legislation continues to play an essential role
in the cooperative effort between Government and industry for
development of the peaceful uses of atomic energy. This develop-
ment has already borne rich fruit for all mankind, and holds out
much greater promise for the future.
The bill recommended by the committee recognizes two basic
facts about the nuclear industry—(1) the continued lack of suf-
ficient actuarial data upon which to base reliable conclusions con-
cerning the necessity for Federal indemnification and (2) the
increasingly rapid accumulation of these data. Given these facts,
and on the basis of all other available evidence, it is the commit-
tee's judgment that the Price-Anderson legislation should now be
extended for an additional 10 years, with the amendments recom-
mended by the committee designed to facilitate the ultimate with-
drawal of Federal indemnification for nuclear facilities.
As for the future, the committee fully appreciates that more
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 705
work needs to be done to insure the effectiveness of the Price-
Anderson legislation in meeting its fundamental objectives. Cer-
tain areas requiring particular study are identified in this report.
At the recom-
[p. 14]
mendation of the committee, the Price-Anderson Act has already
been amended five times in order to render it a more serviceable
tool of national policy. The committee will scrutinize this legisla-
tion as closely in the future as it has in the past, in order to
accomplish this goal.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1 of the bill would amend subsection 170 c. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, by changing the date "August 1,
1967", wherever it appears, to "August 1, 1977". The purpose of
this amendment is to extend the Price-Anderson indemnity legis-
lation, as it pertains to AEG licensees other than licensees subject
to the provisions of subsections 170 k. or 170 1. of the act, for 10
years.
Section 1 of the bill would also amend subsection 170 c. by pro-
viding that the amount of the indemnity afforded by the AEG
pursuant to subsection 170 c. shall be reduced by the amount that
the financial protection required shall exceed $60 million. This
requirement of the bill, and the corresponding requirement in sec-
tions 2 and 5 of the bill, constitutes the heart of the amendments
to the Price-Anderson indemnity legislation which the bill would
accomplish. Under subsection 170 b. of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended, the amount of financial protection required
for facilities designed for producing substantial amounts of elec-
tricity and having a rated capacity of 100,000 electrical kilowatts
or more shall be "the maximum amount available from private
sources". Accordingly, the effect of this provision of the bill
would be to require successive reductions of the governmental in-
demnity for relatively large power reactors, corresponding to any
increases beyond $60 million in the amount of nuclear liability
insurance available from private sources for such facilities.
Section 2 of the bill would amend subsection 170 d. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, by changing the date "August 1,
1967" to "August 1, 1977". The purpose of this amendment is to
extend the Price-Anderson indemnity legislation, as it pertains to
AEG contractors, for 10 years.
Section 2 of the bill would also amend subsection 170 d. by pro-
viding that the amount of the indemnity afforded by the AEG
-------
706 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
pursuant to subsection 170 d., with respect to nuclear incidents
occurring within the United States, shall be reduced by the amount
that any financial protection that AEC may require shall exceed
$60 million.
Section 3 of the bill would amend subsection 170 e. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, by providing that the aggregate
liability for a single nuclear incident (other than a nuclear in-
cident occurring outside of the United States to which an agree-
ment of indemnification entered into under the provisions of
subsec. 170 d. is applicable) of persons indemnified, including the
reasonable costs of settling claims and defending suits for damage,
shall in no event exceed the sum of $560 million.
The purpose of this amendment is to limit the liability of persons
indemnified for a single nuclear incident, to the sum of the govern-
mental indemnity afforded under subsection 170 c., 170 d., or 170 1.
of the act as they would be amended by the bill, together with the
amount of financial protection required of the licensee or con-
tractor. This amendment follows from the amendment of sub-
sections 170 c., 170 d., and 170 1. of the act which would be effected
by sections 1, 2,
[p. 15]
and 5 of the bill, and thus does not alter the basic principle of
limitation of liability presently contained in subsection 170 e.
Section 4 of the bill would amend subsection 170 k. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, by changing the date "August 1,
1967", wherever it appears, to "August 1, 1977".
The purpose of this amendment is to extend the Price-Anderson
indemnity legislation, as it pertains to AEC licensees which the
Commission has found to be nonprofit educational institutions in
accordance with the provisions of subsection 170 k., for 10 years.
Since licensees subject to the provisions of subsection 170 k. are
not required to maintain financial protection, section 4 does not
provide for a reduction of the governmental indemnity which cur-
rently may be provided under subsection 170 k.
Section 5 of the bill would amend subsection 170 1. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, by changing the date "August 1,
1967" to "August 1, 1977". The purpose of this amendment is to
extend the Price-Anderson indemnity legislation, as it pertains to
the NS Savannah, for 10 years.
Consistent with sections 1 through 3 of the bill, section 5 would
also amend subsection 170 1. by providing that the amount of the
indemnity afforded by the AEC pursuant to subsection 170 1. shall
be in the amount of $500 million including the reasonable costs of
investigating and settling claims and defending suits for damage
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 707
in the aggregate for all persons indemnified in connection with
each nuclear incident, provided that this amount of indemnity
shall be reduced by the amount that any financial protection that
AEG may require shall exceed $60 million.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In accordance with subsection (4) of rule XXIX of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law recommended by the
bill accompanying this report are shown as follows (deleted matter
is shown in black brackets and new matter is printed in italic) :
PUBLIC LAW 83-703, AS AMENDED
(Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended)
SEC. 170. INDEMNIFICATION AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.—* * *
* # -f & * * *
"c. The Commission shall, with respect to licenses issued be-
tween August 30, 1954, and August 1, [1967J 1977, for which it
requires financial protection, agree to indemnify and hold harmless
the licensee and other persons indemnified, as their interest may
appear, from public liability arising from nuclear incidents which
is in excess of the level of financial protection required of the
licensee. The aggregate indemnity for all persons indemnified in
connection with each nuclear incident shall not exceed $500,000,-
000 including the reasonable costs of investigating and settling
claims and defending suits for damage, Provided, hoirever: That
this amount of indemnity shall be reduced by the amount that the
financial protection required shall exceed $60,000,000. Such a con-
tract of indemnification shall cover public liability arising out of or
in connection with the licensed activity. With respect to
[p. 16]
any production or utilization facility for which a construction per-
mit is issued between August 30, 1954, and August 1, [1967] 7,977,
the requirements of this subsection shall apply to any license issued
for such facility subsequent to August 1, [1967] 1977.
"d. In addition to any other authority the Commission may
have, the Commission is authorized until August 1, [1967] 1977, to
enter into agreements of indemnification with its contractors for
the construction or operation of production or utilization facilities
or other activities under contracts for the benefit of the United
States involving activities under the risk of public liability for a
substantial nuclear incident. In such agreements of indemnifica-
tion the Commission may require its contractor to provide and
-------
708 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
maintain financial protection of such a type and in such amounts
as the Commission shall determine to be appropriate to cover
public liability arising out of or in connection with the contractual
activity, and shall indemnify the persons indemnified against such
claims above the amount of the financial protection required, in
the amount of $500,000,000 including the reasonable costs of in-
vestigating and settling claims and defending suits for damage
in the aggregate for all persons indemnified in connection with
such contract and for each nuclear incident: Provided, That this
amount of indemnity shall be reduced, by the amount that the
financial protection required shall exceed $60,000,000: Provided
further, That in the case of nuclear incidents occurring outside the
United States, the amount of the indemnity provided by the Com-
mission shall not exceed $100,000,000. The provisions of this sub-
section may be applicable to lump sum as well as cost type
contracts and to contracts and projects financed in whole or in
part by the Commission. A contractor with whom an agreement
of indemnification has been executed and who is engaged in ac-
tivities connected with the underground detonation of a nuclear
explosive device shall be liable, to the extent so indemnified under
this section, for injuries or damage sustained as a result of such
detonation in the same manner and to the same extent as would a
private person acting as principal, and no immunity or defense
founded in the Federal, State, or municipal character of the con-
tractor or of the work to be performed under the contract shall be
effective to bar such liability.
"e. The aggregate liability for a single nuclear incident of per-
sons indemnified, including the reasonable costs of investigating
and settling claims and defending suits for damage, shall not ex-
ceed the sum of $500,000,000 together with the amount of financial
protection required of the licensee or contractor: Provided, how-
ever, That such aggregate liability shall in no event exceed the sum
of $560,000,000: Provided further, That with respect to any nu-
clear incident occurring outside of the United States to which an
agreement of indemnification entered into under the provisions of
subsection 170 d. is applicable, such aggregate liability shall not
exceed the amount of $100,000,000 together with the amount of
financial protection required of the contractor. The Commission
or any person indemnified may apply to the appropriate district
court of the United States having venue in bankruptcy matters
over the location of the nuclear incident, except that in the case of
nuclear incidents occurring outside the United States, the Com-
mission or any person indemnified may apply to the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia, and upon a showing
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 709
that the public liability from a single nuclear incident will probably
exceed the limit of liability imposed by this section, shall be
[p. 17]
entitled to such orders as may be appropriate for enforcement of
the provisions of this section, including an order limiting the
liability of the persons indemnified, orders staying the payment of
claims and the execution of court judgments, orders apportioning
the payments to be made to claimants, orders permitting partial
payments to be made before final determination of the total claims,
and an order setting aside a part of the funds available for possible
latent injuries not discovered until a later time.
#*:;=####
"k. With respect to any license issued pursuant to section 53, 63,
81, 104 a., or 104 c. for the conduct of educational activities to a
person found by the Commission to be a nonprofit educational
institution, the Commission shall exempt such licensee from the
financial protection requirement of subsection 170 a. With respect
to licenses issued between August 30, 1954, and August 1, [1967]
1977, for which the Commission grants such exemption:
"(1) the Commission shall agree to indemnify and hold
harmless the licensee and other persons indemnified, as their
interests may appear, from public liability in excess of
$250,000 arising from nuclear incidents. The aggregate in-
demnity for all persons indemnified in connection with each
nuclear incident shall not exceed $500,000,000, including the
reasonable cost of investigating and settling claims and de-
fending suits for damage;
"(2) such contracts of indemnification shall cover public
liability arising out of or in connection with the licensed activ-
ity; and shall include damage to property of persons indem-
nified, except property which is located at the site of and
used in connection with the activity where the nuclear inci-
dent occurs; and
"(3) such contracts of indemnification, when entered into
with a licensee having immunity from public liability be-
cause it is a State agency, shall provide also that the Com-
mission shall make payments under the contract on account
of activities of the licensee in the same manner and to the
same extent as the Commission would be required to do if the
licensee were not such a State agency.
Any licensee may waive an exemption to which it is entitled under
this subsection. With respect to any production or utilization
-------
710 LEGAL COMPILATION—EADIATION
facility for which a construction permit is issued between August
30, 1954, and August 1, [1967] 1977, the requirements of this sub-
section shall apply to any license issued for such facility sub-
sequent to August 1, [1967] 1977.
"1. The Commission is authorized until August 1, [1967] 1977,
to enter into an agreement of indemnification with any person en-
gaged in the design, development, construction, operation, repair,
and maintenance or use of the nuclear-powered ship authorized by
section 716 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, and designated the
'nuclear ship Savannah'. In any such agreement of indemnifica-
tion the Commission may require such person to provide and main-
tain financial protection of such a type and in such amounts as the
Commission shall determine to be appropriate to cover public
liability arising from a nuclear incident in connection with such
design, development, construction, operation, repair, maintenance
or use and shall indemnify the person indemnified against such
claims above the amount of the financial protection required, [in
the maximum amount provided by subsection e.] in the amount of
[P. 18]
$500,000,000 including the reasonable costs of investigating and
settling claims and defending suits for damage in the aggregate
for all persons indemnified in connection with each nuclear inci-
dent: Provided, That this amount of indemnity shall be reduced by
the amount that the financial protection required shall exceed
$60,000,000."
[p. 19]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
711
l.lu(2) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
H.R. REP. No. 883, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965)
EXTENDING AND AMENDING THE PRICE-ANDERSON
INDEMNITY PROVISIONS OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY
ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED
AUGUST 26,1965.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. HOLIFIELD, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 8496]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered
H.R. 8496, to amend section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended, reports favorably thereon with two amendments and
recommends that the bill do pass.
[p. 1]
l.lu(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. Ill (1965)
l.lu(3)(a) Aug. 31: Passed Senate, p. 22281
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lu(3)(b) Sept. 16: Debated and passed House, pp. 24035-24049
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I
move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consider-
ation of the bill (S. 2042) to amend sec-
tion 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended.
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly, the House resolved it-
-------
712
LEGAL COMPILATION—EADIATION
self into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the
consideration of the bill, S. 2042, with
Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule,
the gentleman from California [Mr.
HOLIPIELD] will be recognized for 30
minutes and the gentleman from Cali-
fornia [Mr. HOSMER] will be recognized
for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from California [Mr. HOLIFIELD].
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself such time as I may use.
Mr. Chairman, I intend to make a rel-
atively short statement and then yield
to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
PRICE] who is the author of the bill for
a section-by-section analysis.
I believe that all Members of this
House can take great pride in the sup-
port they have given to the atomic
energy program since the law was first
passed in 1946. During that period of
time of almost two decades, this House
with almost complete unanimity has
authorized and funded a program that
has accomplished two vital purposes for
the security of our Nation and for the
welfare of our people.
First, with your support we have
built the most powerful military capa-
bility of any nation in the history of
man. It has been your support that
has made possible our great store of
atomic hydrogen weapons and the ca-
pability to deliver those weapons on
target in case of attack by an aggres-
sor. We stand today then by virtue of
our great inventory of atomic hydrogen
weapons in a position to deter a major
attack from any possible aggressor.
This strength in my opinion is the pri-
mary reason why the forces of aggres-
sive communism have hesitated, as far
as an all-out effort is concerned, to
carry out their admitted timetable of
world conquest.
Secondly, you have supported a pro-
gram to apply the energy of the atom
to the peacetime needs of our country.
The atom is now used in more than
1,100 different ways for the benefit of
man. Of course, time would not per-
mit me to recount all of these uses.
Mr. Chairman, we are concerned in
this legislation today with maintaining
a vital part of the peacetime program,
the program of producing electricity
from the fission of the atom. It is in-
teresting to note that the consumption
of electrical energy has been doubling
in our country every 10 years. It will
continue to double and possibly treble
as our population grows and as the de-
mands for goods and services of the
highest standard of living of people of
any nation throughout the world con-
tinues to grow.
We will need and we will use every
kilowatt of electricity which can be de-
rived from falling water.
We will need and use every kilowatt
of electrical energy which can be de-
rived from fossil fuel—coal, oil, and
gas.
We will need and use every kilowatt
of electrical energy which can be de-
rived from the splitting of the atom.
This is why we are on the floor here
today.
All of those three sources will be
needed and used by our exploding pop-
ulation. None of those sources will re-
place any of the others. We are not
going to replace oil, gas, or coal with
the atom. We shall supplement it as
the need for energy in this Nation con-
tinues to double and triple. Competi-
tion between these sources will continue
to cheapen basic energy, and our peo-
ple will continue to raise their stand-
ards of living if we maintain and
preserve the element of competition,
which is the lifeblood of the free enter-
prise system. This legislation will
guarantee competition, and the pro-
duction of energy and the multipli-
cation of the use of energy by our
society will preserve and improve the
security and welfare of our people.
It is interesting to note that this
Nation, with the highest standard of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
713
living of any nation in the world, uses
far more electrical and mechanical
horsepower than any other nation in
the world. To the degree to which
energy is available, that will be the de-
gree to which our standard of living
and our national security in fact will
be controlled.
So when the Congress has helped to
bring into existence a third great
source
[p. 24035]
of energy, it has done one of the
most climactic things, I believe, in the
last 20 years, because energy is the
basis of our society and access to cheap
energy is necessary if we are going to
continue to produce the goods and
services which our country needs.
S. 2042, which is identical to H.R.
8496, was unanimously reported by the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
after careful deliberation and has al-
ready passed the Senate.
This act would amend section 170 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, to accomplish the following
principal purposes:
First. It would extend the effective
period of the Price-Anderson indemnity
provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, for an additional 10
years, from August 1, 1967, to August
1, 1977;
Second. It would require a decrease
in the $500 million governmental
indemnity afforded under the Price-
Anderson indemnity provisions corre-
sponding to the amount whereby the
financial protection required of an AEC
licensee or contractor exceeds the
amount of commercial nuclear liability
insurance currently available, that is,
$60 million; and
Third. It would provide that in no
event would the liability of all persons
who might be liable for public liability
arising from a single nuclear incident
exceed $560 million, that is, the maxi-
mum amount of governmental indem-
nity which could be afforded under the
Price-Anderson indemnity provisions,
as they would be amended by the act,
together with the maximum amount of
financial protection required in accord-
ance with these indemnity provisions.
The introduction of S. 2042 last May
followed many months of informal
meetings and discussions among mem-
bers of the joint committee, the Atomic
Energy Commission, and their staffs,
and representatives of private indus-
try. Three days of public hearings on
this bill were held on June 22-24, 1965,
before the Subcommittee on Legislation
cf the Joint Committee on Atomic En-
ergy.
Mr. Chairman, our committee is con-
vinced that this legislation is necessary
to enable continued progress in the
vital field of development of the peace-
ful uses of atomic energy.
I now yield such time as he may con-
sume to the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. Chairman, I now yield such time
as he might use to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. PRICE], the author of the
bill, to explain the bill.
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, I
strongly support passage of S. 2042, an
act to extend and amend the Price-
Anderson Indemnity Act, which is a
part of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
The Price-Anderson Act resulted
from bills which my distinguished col-
league on the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy, Senator CLINTON P.
ANDERSON, and I introduced in 1956.
The legislation was based upon inten-
sive studies which convinced the joint
committee that a substantial deterrent
existed to fulfillment of the congres-
sional policy, expressed in the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, that private par-
ticipation in and development of atomic
energy be permitted and encouraged.
This roadblock, the committee con-
cluded, arose from the extremely un-
likely but nonetheless potentially
catastrophic possibility of a nuclear
accident, and the inability of prospec-
tive nuclear reactor operators to
obtain adequate insurance from com-
mercial sources.
The joint committee accordingly rec-
-------
714
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
ommended, and Congress approved the
Price-Anderson Act, which applies to
Atomic Energy Commission licenses
and contracts effective before August
1, 1967. The act was intended to ac-
complish two principal purposes: First,
to protect the public by assuring the
availability of funds for the payment
of claims arising from a catastrophic
nuclear accident; and, second, to re-
move a deterrent to private industrial
participation in the atomic energy pro-
gram posed by the threat of tremendous
potential liability claims.
To accomplish these purposes the
Price-Anderson Act provides that cer-
tain licensees of the Atomic Energy
Commission, particularly reactor oper-
ators, will purchase what commercial
insurance is available and appropriate,
and that the Government will indem-
nify the licensee, and the public,
against risks not covered by insurance,
up to a ceiling amount of $500 million.
The act further provides that the
liability of the persons indemnified
shall be limited, for each nuclear in-
cident, to the amount of the Govern-
ment indemnity together with the
amount of financial protection required.
In the case of operators of large re-
actors, the amount of financial protec-
tion required is the maximum amount
of liability insurance available from
commercial sources, which amount is
currently $60 million. In these cases,
therefore, the combination of insurance
and governmental indemnity affords
the public protection in the amount of
$560 million.
A statutory pattern similar to the
foregoing was also made applicable by
the act to certain contractors of the
AEC engaged in the Commission's im-
portant programs for the national de-
fense.
The second purpose for which the
Price-Anderson Act was enacted—re-
moval of the deterrent to private indus-
trial participation in the atomic energy
program—has clearly been accom-
plished. Today, reactors in operation
in this country have a cumulative elec-
trical capacity of about 1 million kilo-
watts. When the Price-Anderson Act
was passed in September 1957, this
country had no installed commercial
nuclear electric generating capacity.
Although the act has also fulfilled
its purpose of providing assurance that
funds will be made available to satisfy
public liability claims resulting from a
major nuclear incident, it is more diffi-
cult to demonstrate that the public
would receive prompt and adequate
financial compensation in the event of
such an incident. The difficulty arises
from the fact that no payment has ever
been made under an indemnity agree-
ment with an AEC licensee. As antic-
ipated, no nuclear incident has occurred
which involved liability even remotely
approaching the limits of available pri-
vate insurance. The sole claim for
damages that has been filed under a
nuclear energy liability policy fur-
nished as proof of financial protection
was for property damage in the amount
of $3,500 and arose from an incident
during the transportation of some nu-
clear fuels. No one was injured in that
incident and of course the claim was
covered by available private insurance.
I want to emphasize—this Federal
indemnity liability insurance has not
cost the Government one penny.
When the original Price-Anderson
Act was passed, it was understood that
the Joint Committee would undertake a
comprehensive review of this subject
toward the end of the act's 10-year
term to determine whether the need
for this legislation still obtained. The
committee has recently completed this
review.
We found that despite the accumula-
tion of an impressive amount of oper-
ating data with respect to nuclear
reactors and other atomic facilities,
the experience in this field is not yet
sufficiently great nor the technology
sufficiently developed to permit one to
completely rule out the theoretical pos-
sibility of a catastrophic nuclear inci-
dent. The insurance industry has
offered, as of January 1966, to increase
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
715
by about 25 percent—to $74 million—
the unprecedented amount of liability
insurance coverage which it is already
providing to the nuclear industry.
However, the committee understands
that the limited number of operating
reactors—and the consequent inade-
quate spread of risk—make it imprac-
ticable for the insurance industry to
provide coverage immediately which is
sufficient to protect the public and in-
dustry from the theoretical conse-
quences of a major accident. On the
other hand, insurance industry repre-
sentatives have indicated their inten-
tion that the aggregate coverage for
the nuclear industry will be increased
in stages to $100 million in the next
few years.
The potential threat of uninsurable
liability, the committee is convinced,
requires an extension of the Price-An-
derson legislation. Every witness
representing the nuclear industry who
testified during our hearings in June
supported this view. S. 2042, in addi-
tion to extending the Price-Anderson
Act for an additional 10 years, would
amend the act in such a way as to per-
mit a gradual reduction of the Govern-
ment's participation in the total
insurance and indemnity program. It
does this, in effect, by requiring a de-
crease in the $500 million governmental
indemnity afforded for large licensed
reactors to the extent of any increase
in the amount of nuclear liability insur-
ance currently available from private
sources, which amount, as I indicated
earlier, is now $60 million.
Thus if, as expected, the insurance
industry increases its coverage to $74
million early next year, the Govern-
ment's indemnity for large licensed re-
actors will be decreased to $486 million.
The maximum protection of the public
currently available—$560 million—will
be undiminished, however, since any
reduction in the Government's indem-
nity
[p. 24036]
would be offset by a corresponding
increase in commercial insurance ob-
tained by operators of nuclear facili-
ties. As the amount of commercial
nuclear liability insurance increase
over the years, the Government's in-
demnity would continue to decrease,
which represents a significant step
toward normalizing the role of insur-
ance in the nuclear energy field.
Lastly, the bill would provide that in
no event would the aggregate liability
of persons who might be liable for dam-
ages arising from a single nuclear inci-
dent exceed $560 million.
At this point, it is important to men-
tion that the operators of licensed
power reactors are paying substantial
sums for the private insurance and
governmental indemnity which they
are required to carry. For example,
according to testimony presented to our
committee, the annual liability insur-
ance premium plus indemnity fee for
a 450,000 electrical kilowatt nuclear
plant amount to over $361,000 versus
about $6,500 for a conventional plant of
the same capacity, without taking into
consideration the partial refund of pre-
miums for nuclear liability insurance
which is expected to be made under the
nuclear liability insurance pools' indus-
try credit rating plan. The AEC had
already received almost $343,000 in in-
demnity fees as of June 30, 1965, which
far exceeds the cost of administration
of this indemnity program, and these
fees are expected to increase substan-
tially in the future.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to explain our reason for seeking
action on the bill this year, even though
the Price-Anderson law does not expire
until August 1, 1967. The lead time
required for planning and construction
of a nuclear powerplant requires a util-
ity company to make its decision on this
matter several years in advance. There
are several utilities already planning
new nuclear plants costing between
$500 million and $1 billion. The exist-
ence of the Price-Anderson legislation
has been cited as an indispensable ele-
ment in such planning. Accordingly,
-------
716
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
the Price-Anderson Act should be ex-
tended without delay to avoid an un-
warranted disruption of this planning
process.
I wish to emphasize that S. 2042 was
reported out by our committee without
dissent and has already passed the
other body. I ask for approval of this
act by the House today.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. BATES].
Mr. BATES. Mr. Chairman, the es-
sential provisions of S. 2042 have al-
ready been adequately described. It
merely extends for another 10-year
period the provisions of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, inso-
far as it pertains to any indemnity that
might arise from a nuclear incident.
It reduces somewhat the Federal par-
ticipation in this insurance program as
financial protection from private
sources becomes available.
In respect to the latter situation, I
would like to make clear my philosophy,
and I believe that it represents the gen-
eral views of the committee, in regard
to the advancement of the peaceful uses
of atomic energy. The taxpayers of
America have contributed billions of
dollars and the scientists have given
years of their talent on the development
of atomic energy. We believe that
what had been a hidden secret from the
beginning of time is now a national,
and indeed, international natural re-
source, and should be put to work in a
multitude of ways for the betterment of
mankind.
The demand for electric power in this
country will be so great that it is ex-
pected that atomic power will supple-
ment—not provide a substitute—for
conventionally conceived power. Nev-
ertheless, in a wide range of interests
atomic development has provided an
impetus to various industries to re-
evaluate and improve their operation.
Mr. Chairman, one of the most grat-
ifying aspects of the development of
atomic power has been the healthy com-
petitive response by the coal industry
to the prospective, long-range competi-
tion for the fuel dollar afforded by
atomic energy and various other fuels.
In New England, where fuel costs are
among the highest in the Nation, we
consider this developing competition as
•a definite asset in our economic
advancement.
Just how significant the coal indus-
try's competitive response has been was
explained in a speech last week by
Charles R. Ross, a member of the Fed-
eral Power Commission. Mr. Ross
commented, and I quote:
The most significant development in the fuel
market since 1963 has been the success of coal
in improving its production operation and, in
cooperation with the railroads, in reducing sub-
stantially coal freight rates. As a result the
coal industry has been able to enter into long-
term contracts with utilities at prices not sub-
stantially higher or even lower than those
existing in the past decade.
There is little question, Mr. Chair-
man, that the development of atomic
power has contributed significantly to
the coal industry's successful drive to
improve efficiency and reduce costs.
There is even less question that atomic
energy's role in this competitive situ-
ation was permitted and fostered by
the Price-Anderson Act.
In order that this healthy competi-
tion can continue and the public be pro-
tected, I firmly support a continuation
of the Price-Anderson indemnity
legislation.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Colorado [Mr.
ASPINALL].
Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, if
for no other reason than general prin-
ciple I would support the enactment of
S. 2042, because I feel that without an
extension of the Price-Anderson Act
the development of atomic power at its
present healthy rate would be
jeopardized.
There are, however, reasons touch-
ing closer to home which urge my sup-
port of this proposed legislation. As
my colleagues in the House may recall,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
717
this body several months ago approved
legislation which authorized the Atomic
Energy Commission to enter into a co-
operative arrangement with a utility or
a group of utilities for research and de-
velopment, design, construction, and
operation of a high-temperature gas-
cooled nuclear powerplant, the AEC,
pursuant to this authority, entered into
a memorandum of understanding with
the General Dynamics Corp., and the
Public Service Co. of Colorado under
which these companies propose to build
a prototype nuclear powerplant in the
State of Colorado.
The parties to this agreement have
taken constructive steps which indicate
that construction of this plant can go
forward as originally contemplated.
However, under the current schedule
the construction permit for this facility
may not be issued by the AEC prior to
the present Price-Anderson cutoff date,
and the memorandum of understanding
already executed by the Public Service
Co. of Colorado, General Dynamics, and
the AEC specifically provides a right of
termination in the event that Price-
Anderson coverage, or its equivalent,
is not available for the project. Fur-
ther, the companies involved in this
project have testified that they deem
coverage of this type essential to their
continuing the plant.
Other companies engaged in some-
what comparable advanced projects
have also told the committee of the
critical importance which they attach
to the continued existence of this
legislation.
Mr. Chairman, the demonstration
project in Colorado is important to the
Nation as a whole because the high-
temperature, gas-cooled reactor is
aimed at increasing the utilization of
nuclear fuel, thereby conserving one of
the Nation's vital resources. This
project is also of great importance to
the people of Colorado, who stand to
benefit from the economies in power
production costs which this type of
plant promises. I would regret to see
a project of such importance to my
State and the Nation at large im-
periled by the failure of Congress to
enact a piece of legislation which in
all probability will never cost the
Government a red cent. I therefore
strongly urge the enactment of S. 2042.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from New Mexico [Mr.
MORRIS].
Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in favor of S. 2042 and I want to con-
gratulate the chairman of this commit-
tee and the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. PRICE] on the work they have
done on this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, the Price-Anderson
Act's greatest impact has probably
been in the area involving the licensed
private activities of companies en-
gaged in the atomic energy program.
However, it should not be overlooked
that the act also authorizes the Atomic
Energy Commission to indemnify cer-
tain of the contractors engaged in the
Commission's vital national defense
programs. In the absence of this leg-
islation, the indemnity protection
afforded these contractors against
nuclear risks would, in the eyes of
many, be something less 'than com-
plete, and perhaps compel some of
these
[p. 24037]
companies to reconsider their partici-
pation in the program.
Prior to enactment of the Price-An-
derson Act, the U.S. Government, in
recognition of the extraordinary finan-
cial risks involved in the activities of
its atomic contractors, provided these
contractors with indemnification ar-
rangements. However, these arrange-
ments, for the most part, were of
necessity made subject to the availa-
bility of funds. As a result, the Com-
mission's contractors were provided
with only limited indemnification pro-
tection against the financial risks asso-
ciated with their work, and the public
was not afforded the assurance that it
would be financially protected from
-------
718
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
damage which might arise from the
contractual activities.
The Price-Anderson legislation recti-
fied this situation. The act contains
provisions which enable the AEC to
treat its contractors generally in the
same fashion as its licensees. Today,
in addition to the coverage of all major
atomic installations operated by AEC
contractors, indemnification agree-
ments have been entered into with man-
ufacturers and carriers of weapons
components, manufacturers of naval
reactor core components, contractors
involved in the conduct of research and
development experiments connected
with the Commission's space applica-
tions program, and so forth and so on.
According to the AEC and the con-
tractors who testified before the Joint
Committee in June, the extraordinary
financial hazards which concerned
many of the Commission's contractors
in the early days of the atomic energy
program continue to exist today and
result from basically the same contrac-
tual activities. There is, then, a con-
tinuing need for the protection afforded
by the Price-Anderson legislation. For
that reason, Mr. Chairman, I whole-
heartedly support an extension of the
Price-Anderson Act and recommend
enactment of S. 2042.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr.
ANDERSON].
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr.
Chairman, I believe I made it perfectly
clear when I spoke earlier under the
rule that I support wholeheartedly the
objectives of this legislation. I believe
it is in the public interest. It is not
subsidy legislation. It is legislation
that quite to the contrary is designed
ultimately, I believe, to let the nuclear
power industry not only grow but pros-
per and stand on its own feet.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is not too
much this afternoon to look forward
very hopefully as I think the gentleman
from Illinois who spoke earlier and
who is one of the coauthors of this bill,
did to the day when we will not even
need legislation of this kind, when we
will have built up the kind of actuarial
experience with respect to the opera-
tions of these reactors so that the pri-
vate insurance industry will be able to
step in and completely meet the needs
of the industry with respect to public
liability insurance.
Mr. Chairman, part and parcel of the
act which established the Price-Ander-
son indemnity system in 1957 were
amendments to the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954 which strengthened the AEC's
comprehensive regulatory program.
The entire legislative package had one
overall objective: the protection of the
public. The regulatory's amendments
to the AEC's Organic Act were de-
signed to make the unlikely possibility
of a major nuclear accident even more
remote. The Price-Anderson Act com-
plemented and supplemented this pro-
tection by providing the public with the
financial protection required if the
highly unlikely ever did occur.
I will not take the time to give a de-
tailed statement of the exacting re-
quirements which must be complied
with in order for a person or organiza-
tion to obtain, and then maintain, a
license to possess and use atomic mate-
rials, suffice it to say that, in the case
of an application for a power reactor
construction permit, an applicant has
to satisfy each of the following groups
as to the safety of the reactor and its
location: the AEC regulatory staff, the
Independent Advisory Committee on
Reactor Safeguards, the Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board, and the Commis-
sion itself. The truly remarkable
safety record compiled by the atomic
energy industry during the 8 years that
Price-Anderson has been in existence
attests to the effectiveness of this reg-
ulatory program.
In this connection I might add, Mr.
Chairman, that there is little reason to
believe that a significant incentive to
the safe operation of nuclear facilities
would be added by the exposure of re-
actor operators and others to potential
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
719
liability beyond the sum of financial
protection required and the Govern-
ment's indemnity. In the years since
the Price-Anderson legislation was en-
acted, neither the AEC, the Advisory
Committee on Reactor Safeguards, nor
the Joint Committee has seen evidence
that this legislation has had the effect
of lessening the safety consciousness of
the nuclear industry.
Moreover, to expose reactor opera-
tors and others to some amount of un-
insurable liability would reinstate in
substantial part the very deterrent to
the growth of the atomic energy indus-
try which Price-Anderson was designed
to alleviate. For these reasons, Mr.
Chairman, the committee rejected the
idea of eliminating or restricting the
"no recourse" provisions of this act.
In concluding I would like to point
out that the Price-Anderson Act, as it
is presently constituted and as it would
be amended, is very similar to legisla-
tion that has been enacted in most of
the countries of the world having ad-
vanced atomic energy programs. These
countries include the United Kingdom,
Germany, Japan, and others. The
atomic energy acts of all of these coun-
tries have in common the basic elements
of Price-Anderson: Underlying liabil-
ity insurance from commercial sources;
a governmental indemnity system as a
secondary source of compensation for
the victims of a nuclear incident; and a
limitation upon the liability of persons
liable.
These same elements are incorpo-
rated into each of the various interna-
tional conventions that have been
drafted on the subject of atomic en-
ergy: the extension of the Price-An-
derson Act would therefore facilitate
the U.S. entry into one or more of these
conventions should our country decide
to become a signatory thereto.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
McCuLLOCH].
Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman,
I rise in support of S. 2042, which
would extend and amend the Price-
Anderson Act. My colleagues have
furnished the facts to support my con-
clusion.
The Price-Anderson legislation is in-
deed complex, and my participation in
the public hearings on S. 2042, and in
our committee's deliberations thereon,
have led me to believe that we ought
to devote further attention as soon as
practicable to the subject of settlement
of claims in the event of a major nu-
clear accident. We hope such an acci-
dent will never occur, but with the
increasing uses of atomic energy pru-
dence dictates that we review this
problem in greater detail, to determine
if additional legislative action is
warranted.
However, there is no reason to delay
action on S. 2042. The Price-Anderson
Act has already been amended five
times, and if additional legislation is
called for, an appropriate recommen-
dation will be made.
I am of the opinion that there is a
sound legal basis for the conclusion of
the Justice Department and the AEC's
general counsel that the no-recourse
provisions of the Price-Anderson legis-
lation—whereby a limit is placed on the
liability of all persons who may be
liable for a nuclear incident—are
constitutional.
Finally, that part of the statement of
my able and experienced colleague, the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. PRICE],
with respect to claims for injury or
damage which involved liability from
either public or private activity in this
field is so good that repetition is justi-
fied. In effect, Representative PRICE
said that the only claim so made was
for only $3,500, and that the claim was
for property damage only.
Mr. Chairman, I urge approval of
S. 2042.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may desire to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. GRAY].
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Chairman, my dear
friend, the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. PRICE], the author of this bill, has
-------
720
LEGAL COMPILATION—EADIATION
made a brilliant statement today and I
rise with great reluctance to oppose
this bill because of certain aspects.
Mr. Chairman, there are certain in-
adequacies in the present Price-Ander-
son Act, which, if are allowed to stand,
raise serious doubt to the wisdom of its
extension for another 10 years.
The Price-Anderson requires the op-
erators of an atomic plant to purchase
the maximum amount of available com-
mercial liability insurance to cover his
and the manufacturer's financial re-
sponsibility resulting from an atomic
accident. Even though the insurance
companies have indicated they might
offer protection of up to $72 million,
the maximum protection an atomic
plant owner can purchase from com-
mercial sources is $60 million. Also
the Government will pro-
[p. 24038]
vide, at rates far below those of the
commercial companies, $500 million of
addition protection against claims of
citizens injured by a nuclear accident.
So, the total protection that an
atomic plant can purchase is $560 mil-
lion. In the event of a nuclear acci-
dent, we know that damage could be
far more than $560 million. A report
prepared by the Brookhaven Labora-
tory, for the Atomic Energy Com-
mission, makes this clear. Yet,
Price-Anderson does not by law recog-
nize this possibility. It arbitrarily
limits the indemnity which a citizen
could collect under such unfortunate
circumstances.
Actually, the law provides less than
$560 million for use against liability
claims. Before the public is allowed to
place claims against the $560 million
"package" certain amounts are set
aside for possible later injuries result-
ing from radiation effects; and investi-
gation, settlement, and legal fees. The
remainder of that is subjected to claims
of the injured people. It would seem
constitutionally and morally correct to
assume that if the remaining moneys
were not sufficient to remunerate the
injured people for their losses, the per-
sons responsible for the accident should
"make up the difference." Price-An-
derson flatly rejects this.
It grants a totally arbitrary limita-
tion of liability to the atomic power-
plants. The AEC's study of the
extension of Price-Anderson contends
this legislation is necessary first, to
assure the availability of funds to sat-
isfy public liability claims in the event
of a catastrophic nuclear accident; and,
second, to remove the deterrent to in-
dustrial activity in atomic energy pre-
sented by the threat of enormous
liability claims if such an accident were
to occur.
In reality, Price-Anderson only as-
sures the availability of some funds to
satisfy in part public liability claims.
The act provides that if the public
liability from a single nuclear accident
exceeds the limit of liability, the appro-
priate U.S. district court having juris-
diction in bankruptcy matters shall
have authority to appropriate pay-
ments from the specified fund among
the injured persons, and these injured
persons shall thereafter have no re-
course to anyone for the balance of the
uncompensated damages. Compared
to liability claims conducted by normal
rules of law, Price-Anderson's no-re-
course clause seems to reshuffle, for the
sake of an atomic experiment, the whole
concept of the citizen's rights of re-
dress and this to me raises serious
doubts as to its fairness, if not its
constitutionality.
Seven years ago the Joint Committee
on Atomic Energy's report stated three
specific grounds to justify this unusual
invasion of the ordinary rights of citi-
zens—the limitations of the right to
recover damages.
First, the Joint Committee felt the
reactors would produce "special nu-
clear material" vital for the defense of
the country; therefore, the companies
should be protected against unlimited
liability claims. This argument now
appears to be inapplicable as the Chair-
man of the Atomic Energy Commis-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
721
sion in a letter to the Joint Committee
states that there is no foreseeable mili-
tary market for the byproducts of
atomic powerplants.
The second reason, that "since title
to special nuclear material is in the
United States, Congress has special
powers and duties as the respect to the
use of that material," has also lost per-
tinence over the past 7 years. Last
year Congress passed legislation per-
mitting and later requiring private
ownership of nuclear fuel.
The third justification for the no-re-
course provision the Joint Committee
presented in 1957 is as follows:
One of the other constitutional bases for the
limitation of liability progiams is the bank-
ruptcy power of the United States, for it's
improbable that any firm could survive claims
against it of $500 million, over and above the
insuiance which might be available.
This reason does not appear to be
valid. The bankruptcy jurisdiction of
the United States is based on the as-
sumption that most of the assets of the
bankrupt have been used to pay cred-
itors. Price-Anderson exempts from
claim the assets of the operator of an
atomic powerplant. And, there are
several utility firms and manufacturers
of atomic power equipment who have
assets well above $500 million.
Thus, if we allow Price-Anderson to
continue without amendment, we will
give the utilities complete freedom
from their financial responsibilities, at
the expense of the public. While their
legislation does offer some protection in
the event of a nuclear accident the no-
recourse clause stops that protection
well short of full protection. For these
reasons I cannot support the extension
of the Price-Anderson Act in its pres-
ent form.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the gentle-
man from Pennsylvania [Mr. DENT]
may extend his remarks at this point
in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objec-
tion, it is so ordered.
There was no objection.
Mr. DENT. Mr. Chairman, I believe
it to be apropos at this time, while the
debate of this conference is going on, to
present to the House an address given
by Thomas Debevoise before the Sec-
tion of Public Utility Law of the Amer-
ican Bar Association at Miami, Fla., on
August 11, 1965.
This address deals with the legal
aspects of the national power survey,
and, in my opinion, makes "must" read-
ing for all Members of Congress when
considering legislation of this type.
For too long we have been dealing in
matters of public power supply on the
record of yesteryear. The only thing
that is constant in life is change, and
since change is inevitable, changes have
come in the public power policy.
From reading the following address
one gets the notion that we had better
take another look at our powerplants
for the future.
It has been my humble opinion over
the years that where public service can
be rendered at reasonable cost to the
people such services should be left to
taxpaying bodies. When such public
bodies engage in profiteering and goug-
ing of the public, then it becomes the
duty of Congress to enact legislation to
protect the public.
I attach hereto the material referred
to above:
LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE NATIONAL POWER SURVEY
Eight months ago the Federal Power Com-
mission's national power suivey was officially
icleased. It is still too early to pi edict ac-
cuiately the form of the new policies and
statutes which will be developed as a lesult
of the material contained in it and which will
determine the shape of the electiic utility indus-
tiy in the future. It is possible, however, to
point up some of the unanswered legal and
policy questions implicit in the survey's covei-
age of the mdustiy.
The institutional olganization of the electric
utility industry is unique among industlies in
this country. There are four entirely different
types of oiganizations which have been de-
veloped to supply the Nation's electric power
requhements. Three of them have been fosteied
as a lesult of policies which have as a common
bond only the desire to meet those power needs;
the fourth has developed as a result of a policy
to make complete use of resouices being de-
veloped foi other purposes. While each segment
uses the same engineering technology to do its
job, institutionally they aie so diffeient that
-------
722
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
they cannot be merged one with another and
still retain characteiistics of moie than one of
the segments. The foui segments are the local
public agency, the investor owned, the coopera-
tive and the Federal.
The national power suivey is giounded on
the fact that all of the segments use the same
engineering technology. While recognizing that
theie are foui segments of the industiy, with
widely divergent characteiistics and costs, the
survey makes no attempt to grapple with the
effect this fact has on the efficient use of the
Nation's resources. Aside from its factual le-
view of the industry, the survey confines itself to
engineeiing matters which could point the way
to lower unit costs of electi ic power in the
futuie. It bases its foiecasts on technically
possible complete cooi dination of the 3,6 00
utility systems in the countiy, with their powei
supply planning integrated on an ever-widen-
ing area basis until eventually it is planned
on a nationwide basis. The survey assumes
that the institutional organization of the in-
dustry will i emain in status quo, with the
implicit infeience that each segment will con-
tinue to supply the same relative share of the
maiket in the futuie that it does today. The
survey does not suggest or recommend any
changes in law or policy in connection with the
organizational stiucture of the industiy, again
implicitly infening that the status quo can be
maintained without such.
On the other hand, in the survey's account
of the histoiy of the industry, theie are basic
facts which would indicate that the industiy
will not i emain in status QUO without the amend-
ment of old or enactment of new laws to leflect
changed conditions in the countiy. The basic
change in condition is that all of the country is
now being supplied with electricity, while this
was not the case at the time the last majoi legis-
lation affecting the shape of the industry was
enacted in the mid-1930's. It is fiom one of
these laws passed 30 years ago that the Federal
Power Commission took its authority to under-
take the survey. Section 202 (a) of the Federal
Power Act enacted in 1935 piovides:
"For the purpose of assui ing an abundant
supply of electric eneigy throughout the United
States with the greatest possible economy and
with regaid to the proper utilization and con-
servation of natural resources, the Commis-
sion is empowered and
[p. 24039]
directed to divide the country into regional
districts for the voluntary inteiconnection and
coordination of facilities for the geneiation,
tiansmission, and sale of electi ic eneigy, and it
may at any time thereafter, upon its own
motion or upon application, make such modi-
fications theieof as in its judgment will pro-
mote the public interest. Each such distiict
shall embiace an area which, in the judg-
ment of the Commission, can economically
be served by such interconnected and cooidmated
electric facilities. It shall be the duty of the
Commission to promote and encourage such
inteiconnection and coordination within each
such district and between such distiicts."
At the time that statute was passed, investor-
owned systems accounted foi 95 percent of the
industry with local public agencies accounting
for most of the balance. The Rural Electrifica-
tion Act had not yet been passed, and the Fed-
eral systems as they exist today were the dream
of only a few people. Today, with very few
gaps, we have Federal transmission lines extend-
ing acioss the country, and theie are some co-
opeiative s> stems which, while nowhere near as
large as the laigest investor-owned systems, are
larger than 75 percent of the investoi-owned
systems. The investor-owned systems' shaie of
the market has been reduced by 20 percent in
the same period and is continuing to be reduced.
These basic facts aie to be found in the survey
as history, but are not projected. They are
the basis foi rivalries, mentioned by the survey,
between the segments as each tries to maintain
01 strengthen its own position and have un-
doubtedly led in the past to building technically
uneconomic facilities. These basic facts and the
resultant rivalry also dictated the form of the
national power survey, although they do not
support the supposition on which the forecasts
aie based: that technically uneconomic facilities
should not and will not be built in the future.
To gather its data for the survey, the Fed-
eral Power Commission called on representatives
of each of the segments throughout the country.
The advisory committees which it formed were
each given this broad base. Every segment of
the industiy leceived two assuiances fiom the
Commission: (1) that the survey would be based
on the maintenance of the status quo between
the segments and (2) that the survey would not
be a blueprint foi the industry in the future but
would attempt to establish engineering guide-
lines for its future growth. These assurances
were able to overcome initial hesitation and
reluctance. They permitted the different com-
mittees to meet to discuss their common tech-
nology and provide the Commission with its
required raw material.
Actually, theie already exist within the in-
dustry many more examples of intersegment
cooperation than of warfare. As a result of
the national power survey, with the ground
rules established on this basis, we can expect
to see more such cooperation in the future if the
status quo can be maintained. The advisory
committee meetings with their exchange of
information on common technical problems and
planning will assist in accomplishing this ob-
jective. With two exceptions these same ground
lules removed the necessity for the advisory
committees to discuss the legal and policy issues
concerning the makeup of the electric utility
industry will actually determine its shape in
the future. Nor are these issues discussed in
the survey.
The two exceptions were, first, a discussion
by the executive advisory committee of a fixed-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
723
charged rate to be used in the survey, and,
second, the broad discussions of the legal
advisory committee.
The fixed-chaige policy which was established
by the Commission after discussion when its
executive advisory committee was reported in
the excellent article on the development of the
suivey by Herbert B. Cohn at 1964 annual repoit
of the section of public utility law, page 15.
The necessity for the policy discussion arose
from the way in which fixed charges are com-
puted for the purpose of detei mining that com-
ponent of the cost of power. The basic elements
commonly classified as fixed chaiges are depre-
ciation, annual cost of capital and taxes. For
facilities with the same estimated service life,
the depreciation element should be the same for
each segment of the industiy, although different
methods, such as sinking fund variants, do pro-
duce diffeient patteins. However, the cost of
capital element is usually taken to be the chaige
paid by the particular enterprise; for example,
the 2-peicent inteiest late paid by cooperatives,
although it could also be viewed in terms of a
national cost of capital. Similarly, the income
tax element is usually viewed nan owly and
recorded only to the extent that the particular
segment of the industry is subject to such taxes.
The cost of capital and tax elements in the
fixed charges of each industry segment vary as
a result of social policies developed in the past
which manifest themselves in diffeiing tax tieat-
ment and diffeiing availability of Government
credit. The fixed chai ges imposed on the
investor-owned segment by reason of the fact
that it obtains its capital without Goveinment
credit and is subject to income taxes are much
higher than those of the other segments
One task that was implicit in the survey
was an evaluation of the lelative mei its of the
larger, more efficient generating units and the
extra high voltage transmission lines which ai e
now becoming technically feasible. If the costs
of these developments had been based on the
fixed charges imposed on the in vestoi-owned
segment and then compared with the cost of
smallei, tiaditionally sized units to which had
been applied the fixed chaiges resulting from
subsidized capital costs and exemption from
income tax, pi ejects which did not make the
most efficient use of national resources would
have appeared to be in the national inteiest.
Since annual cost of capital and taxes rep-
resent so large a part of power cost and vary
widely, a meaningful evaluation of alterna-
tive courses of action and development cannot
be made by applying the fixed chaiges of differ-
ent segments of the industry to alternative
development possibilities. The social policies
developed in the past which result in the wide
difference in fixed charges do not affect the
fundamental national economics of a particular
development.
The Commission recognized the curient neces-
sity for a common yai dstick with which to
evaluate alternative developments and agreed
basically to a composite fixed charge rate deiived
from averaging the fixed charges imposed upon
each of the segments according to the percent-
age of the industiy that each lepresented at the
time. Since the composite fixed charge rate
developed by the Commission was within shoot-
ing tange of the fixed charge late imposed upon
the investor-owned segment of the industry, it
could be uniformly applied without producing
significant distoitions.
The discussions of policy by the 15 lawyers
of the legal advisory committee wei e much
more widespiead and fai reaching and at one
time 01 another covered all of the policy matters
which aie basic to the industry and have found
expression in existing statutes. This could not
be avoided, since, in dealing with the law, you
are dealing with policies. "When these laws and
their policies aie 30 years old and an attempt
is being made to forecast legal bariieis in the
future, they must necessaiily come under discus-
sion. However, since the legal advisory commit-
tee was operating on the same basic assuiances
and assumptions as the other advisory com-
mittees, and since it found that technically the
law would not, in general, prevent engineering
coordination of the systems of the various seg-
ments, these discussions were not repioduced
in the report of the legal advisoiy committee.
In the time available, it would have been impos-
sible to obtain unanimous appioval of the word-
ing of any such discussion, even if that had
been a necessary part of the job of the
committee.
After its intei nal discussion of the different
policies affecting the different segments of the
industiy and the increasing conflicts between
them, the legal advisoiy committee settled in its
repoit foi a description, as factual as possible
in a limited amount of space, of each of the
segments of the industiy and the basic policies
affecting it. It also stated:
"It must be lemembeied that national policy
concei ning the institutional organization of the
industiy, as exemplified in statutes of the United
States and of the sevei al States, is plui alistic.
There are statutes and regulations which in
varying degiees, encourage, favor, protect and
resti ict each of the segments within the
industry."
It did not go on to say that ceitain of these
policies aie unalterably inconsistent and are
leading to head-on conflicts which will determine
the future shape of the industry.
The national powei survey followed the same
method of handling the problem as had the
report of the legal advisoiy committee; the sur-
vey ignored it. It expanded upon the legal
advisory committee's description of the develop-
ment and present situation of each segment and
repeatedly mentioned the pluralistic nature of
the industry. If it was to follow its own ground
rules and if the technical aspects of the survey
were to be accomplished, this is all the Com-
mission could do. In doing so, however, it had
to eschew issues of fundamental policy and
forecast that policies developed 30 yeais ago,
when the shape of the industry was much
-------
724
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
different, would remain in effect well into the
future. This places serious limitations on the
value of the survey as a picture of the industiy
in the future. Its forecast of a retention of
the status QUO, moreover, is unrealistic absent
a reconciliation of the policies affecting the
industiy. The situation has not been in status
auo duiing the last 30 years. If the Federal
systems grow at the same rate in the next 30
years that they have in the past at the expense
of the investor-owned systems, the investoi-
owned systems will soon represent less than 50
pei cent of the power supply in the countiy.
To me, the two veiy basic questions raised
by the facts contained in, but not evaluated
by, the survey in its discussions of possible
methods of economic use of the Nation's re-
sources are (1) whether the leturn is the same
to the Nation fiom the same use of lesouices
by the several segments? and (2) what is the
proper role of the Fedeial systems which, except
for TVA, have no public utility responsibility?
Both are large subjects, so in i egard to the
former, let me just say that, while I believe in
the right of the people in an area to choose
between public and private owneiship to pro-
vide electi ic utility services, I question whether
in making that choice the people in a particular
area should also be able to deteimine the foim
of and lelative contribution the necessai y re-
sources will make to the national economy.
Should the local choice between public, coopera-
tive or private ownei ship of a sti ictly power
system determine the tax levenues to be received
by the National Government? A icciprocal of
this question is: Does the national cost of capital
vary depending upon whether the utility sjstem
to which capital is dedicated is under public or
private ownership? The experience in coun-
tries in which
[p. 24040]
capital is scarce would indicate that it does not.
In regard to the role of the Fedei al sj s-
tems, the issues, while encompassing also the
first question, are much laigei and of ?ieater
impor t for the futuie shape of the electric utility
industry. In 1935, when the Congiess seemed
to express a national policy for coordination
and against duplication of electric utility facili-
ties in section 202 of the Federal Power Act, the
Federal systems as they exist today weie un-
known. The policy to install hydiopower facili-
ties at Bureau of Reclamation and Corps of
Engineers water resource developments being
undertaken for other purposes had, of couise,
been initiated, and there are few who would
suggest that it would be other than wasteful
not to have such a policy. Whei e the power
facilities were to be installed by the Government
itself, legislation authorizing construction, from
an early period, required that any surplus power
be maiketed at cost and contained variations of
the so-called preference clause which today le-
quires that Federal power be made available fiist
to local public agency and cooperative sj stems.
Basically that is the extent of congressional
policy in regard to the Federal systems, other
than TVA today. Today, however, we see the
Department of Interior, which contiols the Fed-
eial s> stems, taking many actions not requiied
to simply market suiplus Fedeial power. It has
sought to block non-Fedeial development of
power piojects which it wished to build. It has
extended Federal transmission lines in wajs not
necessai y to market the power from authorized
piojects. It has used its authonty over public
lands and their mineral deposits to foice a
powei partneiship on non-Federal systems. Re-
cently, for the New England i egion, conjunc-
tively with requesting authorization for the first
Federal hydi oelectric pi oject in the ai ea, it
recommended that the basic i egion transmission
si-stem, from now on, should be "cooperatively
developed by Federal, non-Fedeial agencies and
consumei-owned and private utilities." The De-
paitment also is seeking authorization foi Fed-
eral pumped storage projects which serve only a
powei function, and if such aie authonzed, it
will only be a mattei of time befoie it seeks
authorization foi Fedeial steam electi ic plants
to supply the off-peak eneigy required by such
projects.
Implicit in such actions on behalf of the Fed-
eial sj stems is the assumption by the Depart-
ment of Interioi of a utility responsibility which
I do not believe has been given to the Federal
sj stems by Congress. If it has not, the words of
the Assistant Sacietaiy of the Interior for Water
and Power, in a speech to the 1964 annual con-
vention of the National Rivers and Haibors
Congress, seem presumptuous. He said: "We
will accept as a responsibility of Government,
that all of the Nation have an adequate supply
of low-cost power and water."
What is the proper role of the Federal Gov-
ernment in regard to supplying electricity to
the Nation's consumei s? That is a question
Congiess must answei. It is a question which
must be answere'l soon if CongrebS wishes to
maintain the status quo in the industiy. Just as
the issue wab raised a numbei of years ago when
advocates of Fedei al power attempted to block
the use of atomic energy by the non-Federal seg-
ments of the industry, so today the issue arises
in deciding who shall construct and control the
power output of the proposed large desaliniza-
tion plants. If the plants are constiucted and
the power marketed by the Depaitment of Inte-
i ior without any definition of the Federal sys-
tems' role, there is no question that Federal
transmission lines soon will span the country.
Depending on Congiess' lesolution of the issues,
the national powei survey will have value as a
seiies of possible guidelines for continued non-
Federal development and control of the industry
or- as a blueprint for Federal ownership and
control.
While the jockeying for position between the
segments of the industry has in the past most
frequently caught the public eye when a question
was raised whether or not a particular souice of
power should be developed and, if so, by whom,
the national powei survey makes clear that con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
725
trol of high voltage transmission in the future
will determine control of the industry. Federal
Power Commissioner Ross several months after
the survey was released had the following to say
in support of legislation to give the Commission
authority over constiuction of high voltage
transmission lines by all segments of the
industry:
"Very bluntly, as most people in the power
business realize, it is no longer the parties who
control generation that contiol the industiy—it
is the parties who contiol tiansmission, the ar-
teries of the industry, that control the destiny of
the millions of rate-payeis of this Nation. With
the ever-threatening rivalry between public, pri-
vate, and Federal transmission sj stems, it
should be obvious that there should be some in-
strumentality to referee the building of the
proper interconnections and insure against the
needless duplication of facilities. * * * If theie is
any justification at all for the maintenance of
the status quo in the current lineup of public,
private, and Fedeial systems, which I believe
there is, then such a bill as this is necessary."
While there are built-in limitations as to terri-
tory and economic justification which circum-
scribe the location and timing of non-Fedeial
construction of transmission lines, the same lim-
itations do not apply to the Federal system. All
of the Nation is its potential service area. To-
day, by rolling transmission costs in with proj-
ect costs in basin accounts, on the assumption
that Congress has authorized the use of levenues
from the power projects available after the pay-
out periods to cover on a continuing basis other
costs of the Federal power systems, the Fedeial
systems are building transmission lines sized in
anticipation of projected futui e area requiie-
ments. If this continues and if duplication is u>
be avoided in the future, the Federal systems
will be necessary middlemen in the power pool-
ing transactions of the non-Federal segments.
There are many complicated issues to be de-
cided in regard to the future role of the Federal
systems, and I am not trying to say here how
they should all be resolved. I do suggest that if
the answers are allowed to be developed by the
Federal systems, themselves, it would be unnatu-
ral to expect them to stop short of complete
control of the industiy. Having unilaterally ac-
cepted public utility responsibility, the Fedeial
systems are pushing ahead with their expansion
plans, fully recognizing that a policy vacuum in
regard to them exists. The Assistant Secretary
declared in the talk mentioned befoie: "We do
not have a national water or powei policy in a
literal sense." Further, I suggest that a senous
limiting factor on its tiemendous technical
achievement results from the failui e of the
national power suivey to warn the Congress
that head-on conflicts between the Federal and
non-Federal segments of the electric utility in-
dustry are imminent because of the lack of a
consistent national power policy.
A letter dated June 16, 1965, to the editor of
the Ogden Standard-Examiner in Utah, over
the signature of the Bonneville Power Adminis-
trator, indii ectly poses some of the questions
Congiess must answer. The lettei was in an-
swer to an editoiial cuticizing a proposed Fed-
eral transmission line into southern Idaho.
Bonneville's pioposed southein Idaho line has
geneiated much controveisy in the last year or
so. Initially the line was intended to bi ing
Bonneville power not only to piefeience cus-
tomers in the aiea but also to industrial cubtom-
ei s, all of which local suppliers were ah eady
serving or capable of serving. Last year, the
House Appiopriations Committee, when funds
for the line weie lequested, suggested that
Bonneville work out a wheeling agi cement with
the local powei companies instead of building its
own line. At that time, the lettei recites, the
committee also specifically diiected Bonneville to
serve "preference customeis only" in the aiea.
After going into these matters, and expiessing
Bonneville's side in the traditional aigument as
to whether the Federal system cost the tax-
payers money ("BPA does not cost the tax-
payers a single penny"), the letter continues in
peitinent pai t:
"4. We have diligently sought a wheeling
agreement with the Idaho Power Co. which
would eliminate the need for a Federal line to
southern Idaho. Inability to leach agreement on
one ciucial point—that of service to future
preference customers—has forced us to seek
funds for a Federal line. * * *
"5. We have offered to build a 500,000-volt
line jointly with the Idaho and Utah
companies. * * *
"6. Such a line is needed * * *. The need
for a 500,000-volt line in the aiea was fuither
established by the Federal Power Commission's
national power sin vey, participated in by all
segments of the electnc utility industry includ-
ing the private power companies."
In regard to the letter, first, I believe the per-
son who piepaied it was pai tly in erioi. The
national powei suivey, in connection with pos-
sible patterns of geneiation and transmission in
1980, does suggest the possibility of a laiger
line, 700 kilovolts alternating current or plus-
minus 500 to plus-minus 750 kilovolts direct
current, tunning fiom the Columbia River
through southern Idaho to the area of Kem-
merer, Wyo., and from there all the way to Fort
Worth, Tex. In discussing this largei line, with
several caveats, as a possible pattein of trans-
mission in 1980, the survey suggests that it
might be justified on the bas:s of ieg;onal diver-
sity and the use of mine mouth geneiat-on fiom
coal deposits in southwestern Wyoming to sup-
ply maikets in the Northwest As I lead the
survey, there is no suggestion that there is need
of a 500 kilovolt alternating current line to bring
powei from the Northwest to supply customeis
in southein Idaho in the immediate 01 distant
futui e, noi does it suggest that power is not
cm i ently available to supply all customei s in
the aiea.
But more impoitant, the letter raises the fol-
lowing issues concerning the future shape of the
industry. Supposing the National Powei Sur-
-------
726
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
vey had created a blueprint instead of guidelines
and had established a current need for a 500
kilovolt alternating current line such as is pro-
posed by Bonneville, would that support the
position that Congress should appropriate
money for a Federal system to build the line?
Do the Federal systems have the utility respon-
sibility to supply such transmission needs? Do
they have a utility i esponsibifity to supply the
over 3,000 systems eligible for preference power?
If so, how does the Federal lesponsibility mesh
with the responsibility of public utilities to
serve these same customers under the Fedeial
Power Act? Can cuirent Federal construction
be justified on the basis that additional prefer-
ence customers may be created in the futuie?
In order to market surplus Federal power,
should the Federal systems be permitted to build
transmission lines which are larger than re-
quired by demonstrated Federal need? Should
the only alternatives for a non-Federal system
not wishing to bargain away future load be a
Federal line or a joint Federal-non-Federal line,
[p. 24041]
thereby in either case making the Department
of Interior, with which it has to compete, a
partner to its future tiansactions?
To me these are basic questions concerning
the future shape of the industry which grow
out of the exposition of facts and projections,
but are not discussed, in the national power
survey. Tiue, the Federal Power Commission
could not have resolved these questions; that is
a job foi Congiess. They do, however, affect
the basic assumptions of the national power
survey, maintenance of the status quo and a
pluralistic industry woiking in harmony. An-
swers to them cannot be put off if those assump-
tions are to have validity.
In closing, let me suggest that the piimary
goal of Congress in its powei legislation of the
1930's has been achieved. Today, all of the elec-
tric energy requirements of the Nation are
being served. While these requirements are
expected to continue to grow by leaps and
bounds, the non-Federal segments of the indus-
try which have the utility responsibility to meet
the new lequirements aie in a position and are
laying plans to do so. The methods of Govern-
ment regulation and other restraints, to which
each of the non-Federal segments is subject in
varying forms, will continue to insure that the
job is done properly.
Today, the Nation is embarking on new, far-
reaching, experimental piograms covering many
aspects of basic human needs: phisical, mental,
intellectual, environmental and esthetic. The
progiams will require tremendous capital re-
soul ces. The task of achieving efficient use of
lesouices to speed the attainment of the new
goals will be a tremendously challenging one,
particularly because one can only guess at the
return a particular use of resources will yield in
these areas. New methods of evaluating return
will have to be devised in ordei to know wheie
the propei emphasis should be placed to achieve
each goal.
The return to the Nation from the increasing
use of lesoiuces by the electric utility industry,
however, can be measured with a fair degree of
accuracy. That being the case, it would appear
to me that any discussion of efficient use of
resources by the industry must concern itself
with the return to the Nation from the re-
souices. The use of resouices in this sense is
synonymous with the use of capital. Since the
electric utility industry has larger capital re-
quirements than any other industry in the coun-
ti y, the return to the Nation from the industry's
use of capital has far-reaching significance.
The national power survey records the facts
which demonstrate that the return to the Nation
from the use of capital by each segment of the
electric utility industry is different. Some will
urge, in general terms, that the difference is
only one of form: a return which basically can
be measured in tax dollars as opposed to one
which results in other benefits to the Nation.
The retuin can and should be measured under
conditions as they exist today in order to deter-
mine the validity of such claims. If the return
to the Nation from each segment is unequal as
well as different, and I stiongly suspect it is,
adjustments should be made. This is a matter
which couM not be considered by the national
powei survey even though it very basically con-
cerns the efficient use of the Nation's resources.
It is a matter which Congress should consider,
to be sure that the Nation gets a full return
from all of the capital used in the electric
utility industiy to apply toward the goals of our
Great Society.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
BRAY].
Mr. BRAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the enactment of H.R.
8496 in its present form. It should be
amended to eliminate the no recourse
provision as it applies to proven types
of commercial atomic powerplants. If
this provision must be continued at all,
its application should be restricted to
experimental plants which are neces-
sary steps in the development of
breeder reactors.
To put the situation into proper per-
spective, let us look at these reserves
of low-cost uranium, so that we can
determine whether it is beneficial or
harmful to humanity to encourage
consumption of those reserves in
nonbreeders.
The Atomic Energy Commission, in
the 1962 Report to the President—page
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
727
34 of the appendixes—estimated that
we have enough low-cost uranium—
including that which is still to be dis-
covered to produce the equivalent of
power from about 2,000 billion tons of
coal—if we could use it in the breeder
reactor. The nonbreeder is very ineffi-
cient; it wastes about 99 percent of the
potential energy. In other words, if we
use this material in the nonbreeders, it
will supply the energy equivalent of
about 20 billion tons of coal, and our
descendants will be left with only the
high-cost material.
If we waste the low-level atomic fuel,
will it hurt future generations? It
will, gentlemen. Even when the
breeder reactor is developed, the tre-
mendous fuel inventory involved will
impose a very heavy cost burden if
humanity has to use high-cost atomic
fuel.
In this complex field, we have to rely
on the opinions of scientists. I do not
ask you to accept my word for the state-
ment that waste of low-cost atomic fuel
will be detrimental to future genera-
tions. Dr. Alvin M. Weinberg, a highly
respected scientist for the Atomic En-
ergy Commission, authored a paper
entitled "Burning the Rocks," published
under the number of ANL-6122, as part
of the proceedings on the Conference of
the Physics of Breeding, October 19-21,
1959. Dr. Weinberg made it clear that
extremely high cost atomic ore can
result in very expensive power even if
the breeder reactor is developed, but he
also made it clear that this will not be
true if we have enough low-cost ore
available to get the system started.
The breeder system, according to Dr.
Weinberg, will some day be able to use
high-cost ore for makeup provided it
can be started on low-cost ore.
It appears, then, that we are faced
with this alternative: We can use our
low-cost uranium to replace about 20
billion tons of coal, to the permanent
detriment of mankind. Or, on the other
hand, we can use 20 billion tons of coal
to preserve our low-cost uranium in
order that it can supply 2,000 billion
tons of coal for future generations of
mankind. Which course should we
follow?
How much coal do we have? Accord-
ing to the Department of Interior, we
have about 800 billion tons of recover-
able coal, of which more than 200 bil-
lion tons can be mined without any
substantial cost increase. We are cur-
rently using about one-half a billion
tons per year for all purposes, includ-
ing the generation of electricity. We
can afford to use 20 billion tons of this
coal to preserve for mankind the hope
of low-cost power in perpetuity. If
we do this, we will in effect be trad-
ing 20 billion tons of coal for nearly
2,000 billion tons of coal-equivalent
atomic power, for the benefit of future
generations.
In addition to needless waste of the
power which future generations may
need, are there any other disadvantages
involved in the crash program ap-
proach which is inherent in pushing the
proliferation of nonbreeder reactors?
I believe there are, and I want to take a
few minutes to summarize some of
them.
Paramount should be the problem of
public protection. We are dealing with
a weird new material. We should pro-
ceed cautiously, in order that we do not
take unnecessary risks until we have
accumulated the maximum knowledge
and experience in an orderly manner.
If we have 200 atomic powerplants
operating for 20 years, will we be bet-
ter off than we will if we have 20 atomic
powerplants operating for 20 years? I
think not. We have several large
powerplants now under construction,
and we ought to take advantage of the
opportunity to see how they work, to
find out how safe they are, before we
subject our people to the risk of a large
number of these plants. When I say
"risk," I think I am being conservative.
Remember that witnesses from the
atomic energy industry unanimously
admitted that these plants will not be
built if the manufacturers and oper-
ators have to assume financial respon-
-------
728
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
sibility for the public damage which
may be caused by an accident.
In the history of mankind, no one has
ever yet been able to design a foolproof
machine. We cannot, merely by pass-
ing a law, prevent the occurrence of a
catastrophe. We can say the utilities
do not have to pay for it, but we cannot
effectively say that it will not happen.
If it does happen, the cost may, accord-
ing to the experts, run into the billions
of dollars. Why should we not, then,
follow the sensible course—let us en-
courage the construction and operation
of a reasonable number of these plants,
for a long enough period of time to gain
the experience necessary to the safety
of our people.
If we follow the opposite course—if
we grant the license to take risks at the
expense of the public which is inherent
in the no recourse provision of the
Price-Anderson Act—we subject the
public to unnecessary risks. But we do
more than that. We subject our econ-
omy to grave risks in time of peace, and
we make our country extremely vul-
nerable in time of war.
Where is the risk to the economy in
peacetime? Electric power is one of
the most essential commodities for a
healthy economy. Let this country be-
come prematurely dependent on atomic
power for a large portion of its elec-
tricity, and then assume that one single
atomic powerplant, anywhere in the
world, causes a multibillion-dollar ca-
tastrophe. What will happen? You
know what will happen. The public
will demand that every atomic power-
plant in the country be shut down
immediately, and our economy will be
seriously crippled for lack of power.
It takes a period of several years to
build coal burning powerplants and to
open new coal mines, and the
[p. 24042]
economy would lack sufficient electric-
ity for a period of time long enough
to have a very serious effect.
In wartime, the risk is even greater.
I am told that some scientists take it for
granted that all atomic powerplants
will be shut down in the event of war,
because of the terrible effects of an
enemy bomb or sabotage on an atomic
powerplant. That, of course, would
cause a disastrous shortage in the sup-
ply of electricity at a critical period.
To complicate matters, we already have
in storage, in steel tanks, some 100
million gallons of the most terrible poi-
son known to man—high-level radioac-
tive wastes resulting from reprocessing
of atomic fuel. I have been informed
that an atomic bomb could release this
material into the environment, making
large sections of the Nation uninhabit-
able for hundreds of years. The more
of this material we accumulate, the
more vulnerable we are.
If we extend the Price-Anderson
Act, we will force our country and our
people to undergo all these unneces-
sary risks, and what will we gain? At
the expense of future generations, we
may reduce our fuel bill by 10 percent.
How much will that mean to the aver-
age homeowner? The cost of coal is
about 12 percent of the total electric
bill, or about $1 per month for the
average home. If we take all of these
terrible risks, we may save the aver-
age homeowner 10 cents a month, until
the waste of low-cost atomic fuel
catches up with us.
I think we should inhibit the unwise
proliferation of nonbreeder atomic
powerplants. I think we should re-
strict the application of the Price-An-
derson Act to those experimental and
research plants which are necessary for
the eventual development of breeder
reactors, to the permanent benefit of
mankind.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, let me
say, "We have already learned how to
waste atomic fuel. Let us concentrate
in the future on learning how to utilize
its full potential, for the permanent
benefit of mankind."
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania [Mr. SAYLOR].
Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Chairman, in the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
729
report on H.R. 8496, the Joint Commit-
tee states—page 13—that extension of
the Price-Anderson Act is justified "on
the basis of, first, overall benefits to the
public resulting from competition be-
tween nuclear and fossil fuel power-
plants; and, second, the development of
a new source of basic energy for this
and future generations."
It is difficult to quarrel with the ob-
jective of developing a new source of
energy which will serve mankind when
needed. I therefore feel that it may be
justifiable to extend the provisions of
the Price-Anderson Act—perhaps even
the no-recourse provision which frees
plant operators from liability—with re-
spect to experimental plants which are
necessary to develop the breeder tech-
nology.
I do, however, object to extension of
the no-recourse provision with respect
to the proven types of atomic power-
plants. Let us examine the Joint
Committee's reasoning with respect to
these plants. Apparently it is based
on the claim that atomic powerplants
are already saving the electricity con-
sumers of this country $1 billion a
year. On page 7 of the report, the
Joint Committee states:
Spurred on by Government encouragement
and assistance, there have been extiaoidinaiy
reductions in the cost of nuclear power. These
developments have, in turn, produced a salutary
competitive lesponse fiom the fossil fuel and
fuel transportation industries, with a resulting
savings in power costs to the American tax-
payers that has been estimated at $1 billion per
year. It is acknowledged that no commercial
nuclear powerplant is yet pioducing electricity
at costs competitive with conventional plants,
and much development work remains.
In other words, gentlemen, the Joint
Committee asks us to extend this no-
recourse provision, without which the
utilities would cease to build the proven
atomic powerplants, because atomic
power is allegedly saving the people of
this country $1 billion a year. Let me
state flatly that the $1 billion figure is
simply ridiculous. If the rest of the
report is as erroneous as this figure,
then it is time for us to make a com-
plete and searching analysis of the
course we are taking in the atomic
power program.
Mr. Chairman, last year the utilities
spent a total of about $2 billion for
coal, oil, and gas for use in generating
electricity. This figure of $2 billion
includes the cost of delivery to the gen-
erating plant. If the Joint Committee
is correct in using the $1 billion figure,
that means that the delivered price of
coal, oil, and gas would have been 50
percent higher in the absence of the
threat of atomic competition. That, on
its face, is completely without founda-
tion.
Coal furnishes the fuel for most of
the thermal powerplants in this coun-
try. Let us look at the price paid by
utilities for coal over the last several
years. The average delivered price, in-
cluding cost of the coal and cost of the
transportation, has been as follows:
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
Per ton
. $6.61
6.61
.. 6.31
.. 6.07
. . 6.32
.. 6.64
. . 6.58
. . 6.37
6.26
. . 6.20
. . 6.17
6.02
Mr. Chairman, this record shows a
steady reduction in the delivered price
of coal since 1952—a reduction amount-
ing to approximately 10 percent for the
entire interval of 12 years. Most of
this reduction occurred prior to 1963.
Let us look at the causes.
First, the coal-producing industry is
intensely competitive. It is compet-
itive with natural gas, with Govern-
ment-sponsored hydroelectric power,
and with imported residual oil. It is
also intensely competitive within it-
self.
In the past several years, there has
also been intense competition in the
transportation of coal to utilities. The
coal industry developed a feasible
method of carrying coal by pipeline.
-------
730
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
Great strides were made in the trans-
mission of mine-mouth power to mar-
kets. These factors, coupled with the
competition of coal mines served by
water carriers, have served to force
the railroads to develop low-cost meth-
ods of transporting coal. As a result,
the unit train concept was put into use.
The unit train concept has reduced the
cost of delivering coal by an average of
about $1 per ton, or less. Less than
100 million tons of coal are being-
hauled by unit train. Even if this
were all attributable to the threat of
atomic power, the amount involved
would be less than one-tenth of the
claimed billion-dollar-a-year saving.
But the truth is that threatened com-
petition from atomic power can be
credited with only a very small part of
the unit train saving, and with little or
no part of the reduction in the cost of
coal. Until Jersey Central Power &
Light Co. annovinced its plans to build
the Oyster Creek atomic powerplant,
no one in the coal industry or the rail-
road industry regarded atomic power
as posing any real competition for a
period of many years into the future.
The Oyster Creek announcement came
in 1963. If atomic energy has had any
effect at all on utility fuel prices, the
effect is minute. Instead of being any-
where near $1 billion a year, as claimed
in the Joint Committee report, it is far
less than the present annual expend-
itures—nearly $200 million—being
made by the Government for the pur-
pose of promoting atomic powerplants.
Some day in the far distant future
we may run short of low-cost supplies
of coal. When and if that day comes,
mankind will need atomic power. In
order for atomic power to serve any
long-range purpose, breeder reactors
will be required. I therefore agree
that we should take necessary steps to
continue an orderly program of re-
search for the development of breeder
reactors.
But if the only excuse for the contin-
uation of the "no recourse" provision
for proven types of atomic powerplants
is the allegation that they are already
saving consumers of this Nation $1 bil-
lion a year, then I say the excuse is so
patently erroneous that we should hold
up this legislation until we can review
the entire atomic power program. We
are dealing with a matter which may
have very serious consequences for the
public. Let us make sure we are on
sound ground before we act. The Joint
Committee's use of the $1 billion a
year figure indicates to me that the
rest of the Members of Congress
should take a good look to see if the
committee has made similar grave
errors in guiding this program.
Mr. HECHLER. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SAYLOR. I yield to the gentle-
man from West Virginia.
Mr. HECHLER. Have not the al-
leged savings in power costs been un-
realistically presented because part of
the cost is a Federal subsidy to atomic
energy production?
Mr. SAYLOR. It is all Federal sub-
sidy. The AEC should come forward,
be truthful and admit it. There is a
place in the rapidly expanding electric
energy field for atomic power. How-
ever, I do
[p. 24043]
not think that the Joint Committee
has any justification for coming for-
ward with a figure like $1 billion in
saving that they cannot substantiate
and no one on their staff or anyone else
can substantiate.
If the rest of the atomic energy pro-
gram is as faulty as that statement,
then we should not pass the bill, but we
should appoint a special committee to
examine the entire atomic energy pro-
gram, both military and peacetime
uses.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah.
Mr. BURTON of Utah. Mr. Chair-
man and Members of the Committee, I
must acknowledge that I am somewhat
confused by some of the arguments
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
731
which have been advanced in support
of extension of the Price-Anderson Act.
First, we are assured that nuclear
powerplants of any size can be safely
built and operated anywhere in the
country, even in large centers of pop-
ulation.
But then, we are told that no more
nuclear powerplants will be built by
private groups unless the Government
continues to make available to the
operators of such plants indemnity in-
surance up to $500 million and, further-
more, limits the total liability which
can be incurred as the result of any nu-
clear accident to $560 million, regard-
less of the total damage involved.
I think all of us are prepared to ac-
cept the assurances of the Atomic En-
ergy Commission and the builders and
operators of nuclear powerplants that
they are safe; they are experts in this
field and we must rely upon their judg-
ment.
However, there is one question which
has occurred to me and which I am sure
has occurred to many other people. If
the nuclear plants are safe, as we are
assured they are by the experts, why
should it be necessary for the Govern-
ment to provide them with protection
against the risk of a possible accident,
and more importantly, why should the
liability resulting for any such accident
be limited?
It is my feeling, Mr. Chairman, that
if nuclear powerplants are not safe,
they should not be built. If they are
safe, and we are assured repeatedly
that they are, then the manufacturers
and operators of such plants should be
prepared to assume the responsibility
for all the risks and liabilities in-
volved in such an operation.
It has been stated over and over that
the possibility of an accident in one of
these plants is so remote that it is not
even worth considering. Yet, spokes-
men for the utility industry went be-
fore the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy and stated without equivoca-
tion that unless the Price-Anderson Act
is extended they would not undertake
to build any nuclear powerplants.
I cannot understand this apparent
contradiction between what appears to
be the nuclear industry position on
safety, when stated publicly, and the
position of the industry on this particu-
lar piece of legislation.
There is no doubt in my mind that
the Price-Anderson Act constitutes a
significant subsidy for the operators of
commercial nuclear powerplants. But
what concerns me even more is the
limit which is set on the amount of
damages for which the public would be
compensated in case of an accident.
We are being asked here today to ex-
tend the legislation for 10 years with-
out amendment. The Government—
which means the taxpayers—will con-
tinue to bear the major share of the
burden for providing indemnity
insurance without which nuclear pow-
erplants would not be built. And
furthermore, the public is being asked
to accept for another 10 years a plan
whereby it would not be fully compen-
sated for any damages which might
result from the operations of such
plants.
The present act does not expire until
19G7—2 years from now. I cannot see
there is any urgent need to pass the ex-
tension bill at this session. I sincerely
believe that action should be postponed
until the Joint Committee conducts fur-
ther studies, which it has announced it
plans to do, on the question of how the
public would be compensated for dam-
ages in any nuclear accident.
I strongly feel there is a basic and
fundamental question at issue in this
matter. The right of the public to pro-
tection against hazards over which it
has no control has long been accepted
as a matter of course. In this legisla-
tion, we are being asked to transport
what was supposed to have been a tem-
porary departure from this accepted
procedure into a permanent and estab-
lished process.
Mr. Chairman, as presently written
the Price-Anderson Act is patently un-
fair to the public. It asks the public
-------
732
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
to assume almost the full burden of
risks involved in the construction and
operation of nuclear powerplants. If
the nuclear powerplants now being
built require that the Government pro-
vide indemnity insurance, then at least
we should see to it that the public is
fully compensated for any damages.
The cutting off of liability from any
nuclear accident at $560 million is cold-
blooded denial of the rights of the
public.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURTON of Utah. I yield to
the gentleman from Illinois.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. As I
indicated earlier, we do not have the ac-
tuarial experience at the present time.
As I said in 1957, when the act was first
passed, we did not then have a single
kilowatt of installed nuclear power.
Today we have something like 1,000
megawatts, or 1 million kilowatts.
That is within a relatively short period
of time.
In these 8 years, the insurance com-
panies have, however, not had enough
experience with the operation of these
plants to provide the kind of coverage
that the utilities would want and need.
I believe the gentleman from Illinois
said earlier that the maximum today is
$60 million but we are hopeful that in
a few years it will be up to $100
million. As the amount of private
coverage increases, the amount of Gov-
ernment indemnity will go down. I
think we are arriving at a solution.
That is why at the present time we
need to have a Government indemnity
program.
Mr. BURTON of Utah. I thank my
friend from Illinois for his comments.
I should like to point out that the pres-
ent act does not expire until 1967, 2
years from now. I cannot see that
there is any urgent need to pass the
extension at this session. I sincerely
believe that action can be postponed.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Wyoming [Mr. RONCALIO].
Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Chairman, it
is with some reluctance that I speak
upon this subject. While I agree in the
committee most of the time with the
eminent minority member of the House
Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs, the gentleman from Pennsylva-
nia [Mr. SAYLOR], who just spoke, I
would agree with him on being opposed
to this legislation at this time, but for
an entirely different reason.
If the Congress of the United States
—the Senate and the House—has one
great monument to its eternal credit, it
is the Joint Atomic Energy Committee,
which probably not only is a success
but perhaps too great a success in its
contribution to the well-being of the
people of the world and in its efforts to
promote the useful and peaceful pur-
poses of atomic energy. However, the
time has come, if I may say so to my
colleagues, when there is no longer a
justification for what appears to be an
unreasonable subsidy to the nuclear
phase of the generation of our electric
energy. I say unreasonable for the
following reasons:
First, insurance companies are will-
ing to increase their coverage of public
damage by a few million dollars, to a
total of $74 million, but they have not
demonstrated confidence in the safety
of atomic plants. The insurance com-
panies have inserted clauses in their
regular casualty policies eliminating
coverage on damage from radioactive
contamination. As a result, the home-
owner, the factory owner, and the
owner of office buildings have no insur-
ance coverage in their own policies
against radioactive contamination;
their recovery will be limited to their
proportionate share of a fund which
may be grossly inadequate.
Second, the Advisory Committee on
Reactor Safeguards, an independent
group of eminent scientists, told the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy:
Considerable further improvements in safety
are required before large power reactors may
be located on sites close to population centers.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
733
Third, various utility witnesses ap-
peared before the Joint Committee and
were asked to comment on the coal in-
dustry's proposal that unlimited Gov-
ernment insurance beyond the amount
available through private sources be
provided at comparable commercial
rates, and that the utilities be subject
to ordinary rules of law in the event
public damage exceeded the coverage
purchased. One after the other, the
utility witnesses stated they would not
build atomic plants if the law made
them subject to financial responsibility
for the amount of such damage in ex-
cess of the commercial insurance and
Government indemnity.
[p. 24044]
Thus, an unfair subsidy for atomic
power does in fact set back the orderly
development of the natural resources of
Wyoming, particularly of the large coal
reserves throughout my State. There
is no valid reason why Congress should
continue artificial stimulation to the
growth of atomic power which is now a
force in our competitive economy and
there is certainly no reason why the
coal fields of America should lie un-
developed as a result of this unfair
competition.
Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman,
will my friend from Wyoming yield to
me?
Mr. RONCALIO. I am proud to
yield to the gentleman from Colorado.
Mr. ASPINALL. Would my friend
point to any place where there has been
unfair competition which has hurt the
coal mining industry, so far as compe-
tition is concerned? I have a district
similar to the district of my friend. All
of the energy resource values are there.
If my friend can point to a place where
we have done damage to the coal min-
ing industry, I should like to hear about
it.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
Mr. Chairman, it has come time to
tidy up the Chamber a little bit, after
some of the oratory which has preceded
this.
Perhaps I should mention the re-
marks of the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania concerning the mysterious billion
dollars, since he cannot see where it
comes from, because there are only $2
billion worth of nonnuclear fuels being
consumed in this country, by way of
the production of electricity.
If the gentleman from Pennsylvania
had taken a close look at the report he
would have noted that the report was
not talking about buying B.t.u.'s, buy-
ing coal, buying oil or any other con-
ventional fuel. The report was not
addressing itself to the beginning side
of the powerplant, but was addressing
itself to the inside of the powerplant,
where the electricity comes from, where
people buy it.
Our report said, on page 7:
As indicated in the preceding section of this
report, this country has made great strides in
the development of civilian nuclear powei dur-
ing the last 8 yeais. Spurred on by Government
encouragement and assistance, there have been
extiaordinary reductions in the cost of nuclear
power. These developments have, in turn, pro-
duced a salutary competitive response from the
fossil fuel and fuel tiansportation industries,
with a resulting savings in power costs to the
American taxpayers that has been estimated at
$1 billion per year.
We received specific testimony on
this point from the Chairman of the
AEC during our fiscal year 1966 AEC
authorization hearings, at page 1386,
as follows:
SAVINGS ATTRIBUTED TO NUCLEAR POWER
Representative HOSMER. Against that figure,
I think someone has estimated that the develop-
mental work which has been done in the nuclear
energy field undei sponsorship of the Govern-
ment is now resulting in at least a billion dol-
lars a year saving to American citizens in the
fol m of power rates that have not been in-
ci eased because we have this foim of power.
Is that somewhere in the ball park?
Dr. SEABOKG. Yes, that is in the ball park.
That is an estimate that has been made and I
think on a good basis.
Representative HOSMER. So we are not just
pui suing science for science's sake, we are pay-
ing dividends to the taxpayers then.
Di. SEABORG. Yes, I think so.
What our report reflects is that the
consumers of electricity in the United
-------
734
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
States are not paying $1 billion a year
for electricity which they otherwise
would be paying, except for the fact
that this new source of energy for the
production of electricity has been in-
troduced and has created a sharp pen-
cil competitive situation.
We were not referring only to sav-
ings in fuel costs. Fuel costs, of course,
are only part of the total cost of pro-
ducing energy. We were referring to
total annual savings in overall energy
costs including transportation costs.
Considering the large amount of en-
ergy we now use annually in this coun-
try even small reductions in unit energy
costs result in large total annual sav-
ings. For example, applying a 1 mill
per kilowatt-hour reduction to the
FPC's projection of total energy gen-
eration for 1965 which is over 1 million
million kilowatt-hours—1012 kilowatt-
hours—results in an annual saving of
$1 billion.
I believe we all agree that that kind
of situation is good for the United
States. In fact, I believe we have spent,
in all, about $22 billion on all phases of
our atomic effort. A good deal of that
was a crash program for the Manhat-
tan project during the war. This was
the program which produced the atomic
bomb and enabled us to avoid a bloody
invasion of the Japanese Islands.
So for every cent of money which the
Government has put into the civilian
atomic energy program which has
totaled about $1% billion, the Amer-
ican people have already, practically,
gotten out everything they have in-
vested, on the peacetime side of the
atom, and they are in a position where
it is repaying dividends to them.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOSMER. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Is it not true, of
the figure of some $20 billion that has
been spent approximately $18.5 or $19
billion has been spent for military pur-
poses for the development of weapons,
for the improvement of weapons, and
for the great inventory of weapons
which we now have?
There are 30 nuclear submarines of
the Polaris type which now roam the
oceans of the world, and which give us
the most invulnerable launching capac-
ity of any nation. A portion of this $19
billion went toward that.
Mr. HOSMER. So when you come
down to it the Government is not in the
business of business, but in the business
of making a better America. Not only
have we made a better America through
this program, but we have made a more
prosperous one by this program. The
Government has by this program con-
tributed to the reduction in the cost of
living rather than to an increase in it.
I also think it should be commented
on, although it is not directly pertinent
to this argument, that it is almost im-
possible to find a safer industry in
America than the atomic energy indus-
try. I think that is due to the fact that
we take precautions of every nature.
I want to say, also, to support some
statements on the absence of actuarial
figures upon which any insurance could
be based, that it is a fact that in the
entire history of the Price-Anderson
Act there has only been one $3,500 ac-
cident in this industry which involved
a claim against a licensed reactor op-
erator who was required to furnish
financial protection under the Price-
Anderson Act. That is pretty remark-
able.
I would like to recall that before
coming to Congress in the year 1947-48
I was an employee of the Atomic En-
ergy Commission in its legal depart-
ment at Los Alamos. In going through
some of the files at that time I came
across the workmen's compensation
that was being carried on all the work-
ers in this area. The University of
California was a contractor. It could
not say what it was doing there, so it
had to pay the highest insurance rates
of all back in 1943 when their activi-
ties started. In 1948 it was still pay-
ing the high rate. When we went
back to look at the accident experience
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
735
it was almost impossible to believe that
an installation, a gigantic installation
such as this one, dealing with this
new and difficult subject, could have
had the safety record it had.
I think we can be proud that the tra-
ditions that began with America's past
for putting the atom to work for its de-
fense and then putting it to work for its
peace have been traditions which have
included the utmost regard for the pub-
lic safety and for the safety of the em-
ployees involved.
An exemplification of this tradition
is that legislation which we seek to ex-
tend today.
I would like to devote a minute or two
to the charge, made by some, that the
Price-Anderson Act is a subsidy to the
atomic power industry. If by that term
the opponents of this type of legislation
mean payments of money to or on be-
half of the atomic power industry, I
would point out to them that not a red
cent has been expended under a Price-
Anderson indemnity agreement with a
licensee during the 8 years of the act's
existence. As a matter of fact, the al-
most $343,000 received by the AEC in
indemnity fees have more than repaid
the costs of the administration of this
program, and these fees are expected
to increase substantially in the future.
While the Price-Anderson Act is not
a subsidy within the conventional
meaning of that term, it is indisputable
that the act is a form of Government
assistance. However, the type of as-
sistance afforded by the Price-Anderson
Act is entirely consistent with the basic
principles underlying other Federal
programs—programs such as reclama-
tion projects and the improvement of
the Nation's inland waterways. In de-
termining the value of these programs,
the cost to the Federal Government of
the improvements must be measured
against the benefits to the American
people which the improvements pro-
duce. In the case
[p. 24045]
of the Price-Anderson indemnity legis-
lation, the benefits derived by the
American people are amply evidenced
by the estimated $1 billion annual
savings in power costs which I men-
tioned a moment ago. These benefits, I
would reiterate, have been achieved
under legislation which thus far has
cost the Government nothing.
Some have argued that the atomic
energy industry should be made to pay
the estimated true costs of the indem-
nity protection which the Government
affords under the Price-Anderson Act.
Aside from the fact that no one knows
the true costs of this protection, since
the very lack of actuarial data for this
industry is what necessitates the gov-
ernmental indemnity, I say this is not
a desirable approach.
Although I strongly recommend en-
actment of S. 2042, I also believe that
further study should be undertaken to
assure that the public would receive
prompt and adequate financial compen-
sation in the event of a major nuclear
accident. During the hearings on S.
2042, several of my questions elicited
responses from AEC witnesses which
indicated to me that the problem of
settlement of claims in the event of
such an accident is rather like the vast
Amazon Basin, explored only in very
small part by very few people. Further
hearings on this subject, as our com-
mittee report recommends, are cer-
tainly called for.
Mr. Chairman, in order that the
growth and development of nuclear
power may continue to progress in
an orderly and expeditious manner, I
join Chairman HOLIFIELD in urging
passage of S. 2042.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman,
this is the last atomic energy bill which
I shall handle this year. I want to take
this occasion as chairman of the Joint
Committee to express a word of thanks
to the members of our committee, the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. PRICE],
the gentleman from Colorado [Mr.
ASPINALL], the gentleman from Texas
[Mr. THOMAS], the gentleman from
-------
736
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
New Mexico [Mr. MORRIS], the gen-
tleman from California [Mr. Hos-
MER], the gentleman from Massachu-
setts [Mr. BATES], the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. ANDERSON] and the gen-
tleman from Ohio [Mr. McCULLOCH]
for the intensive work that they have
done and for their dedication in trying
to solve the problems of this important
field to strengthen our Nation, both on
the domestic front and on the military
front.
They have rendered to me the utmost
of cooperation and I should like to ex-
press my appreciation today.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further re-
quests for time.
Mr. SECREST. Mr. Chairman,
H.R. 8496 would extend the "no re-
course" provision of the Price-Ander-
son Act. This provision eliminates the
liability of reactor manufacturers and
operators for damages in excess of the
commercial insurance and Government
indemnity, even if such damages are
caused by willful negligence.
In 1956 the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion opposed such a provision because
of doubts as to its constitutionality.
Now, however, the Joint Committee
states, at page 7 in its report on H.R.
8496:
Finally the committee agrees with the views
expressed by the Attorney General and the
General Council of the AEC, in response to an
inquiry by the committee, that the limitation of
liability provisions of the Price-Andei son legis-
lation, as originally enacted and as they would
be amended by the bill recommended by the
committee, are constitutionally permissible.
In the last analysis, the Supreme
Court of the United States will decide
whether the "no recourse" provision is
a constitutional exercise of the powers
of Congress. When and if an atomic
powerplant catastrophe occurs, the Su-
preme Court will decide whether or not
the corporations which build these re-
actors, and whether or not the utility
corporation operators of these plants,
shall go completely free of liability.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, if we
in Congress pass this legislation, we
should alert atomic powerplant manu-
facturers and operators that the views
of the Joint Committee, the Attorney
General, and the General Counsel of the
AEC are not binding upon the Supreme
Court. The manufacturers and opera-
tors of these plants should be told, in
spite of the report of the Joint Com-
mittee, "Gentlemen, if you rely upon
the constitutionality of the no recourse
provision, you do so at your peril. That
question will be decided by the Supreme
Court, in the light of the circumstances
that exist when an atomic catastrophe
has brought the question before the
Court."
My purpose in making this state-
ment, Mr. Chairman, is to warn the
operators and manufacturers of these
plants that, in the event this provision
is held unconstitutional, Congress will
have no legal duty to pay for damages
otherwise assessable against them.
Mr. KEE. Mr. Chairman, during
the hearings on H.R. 8496, the wit-
nesses for the reactor manufacturers
and the utility operators were each
asked by the chairman of the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy what
they felt would be the consequences of
the failure of Congress to extend the no
recourse provision of the Price-Ander-
son Act—the provision granting free-
dom from liability for damages in
excess of the $60 million insurance pool
and the $500 million Government in-
demnity fund. To a man, the witnesses
stated that atomic powerplants would
not be built without such freedom.
This is a very alarming situation, be-
cause it can only be interpreted as a
declaration by these witnesses that they
do not have faith in the safety of these
plants. You can check the accuracy of
my statement by reading the record of
the hearings before the Joint Commit-
tee, but you do not have to go that far.
You can read the report of the Joint
Committee recommending the adoption
of H.R. 8496. On page 9 of the report,
it is stated:
Based upon the evidence and testimony pre-
sented to the committee, the committee has
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
737
concluded that the potential threat of uninsur-
able liability arising out of nuclear activities, as
discussed in the pieceding section of this lepoit,
would effectively deter necessary industrial par-
ticipation in this program. Every witness lep-
resenting the nuclear industry, who testified at
the committee's healings in June, supported
this view.
Under these circumstances, I do not
believe we should pass legislation en-
couraging the utilities to place upon the
people of their areas financial risks
which the utilities are themselves un-
willing to assume. If we extend the "no
recourse" provision of the Price-Ander-
son Act, we will be forcing the public
to assume serious risks for which they
will have no recourse against anyone.
How much financial risk are we talk-
ing about? The 1957 Brookhaven re-
port prepared by the Atomic Energy
Commission estimated that the prop-
erty damage from radiation could be,
under the worst circumstances, as great
as $7 billion, and could involve contam-
ination of 150,000 square miles. An
area of 150,000 square miles means a
circle with a radius greater than 200
miles.
In the 1957 report, the AEC was talk-
ing about a small atomic power plant.
Today plants five times as large are
being built, and we could be talking
about maximum property damage of
$35 billion, with contamination of 750,-
000 square miles—a circle with a radius
of nearly 500 miles.
Assuming that this unthinkable ca-
tastrophe does occur—and no one can
say that it will not—who will suffer the
loss, under the Price-Anderson Act?
Not General Electric, Westinghouse, or
the operating electric utility—they are
granted immunity. The insurance
companies will pay $60 million; Uncle
Sam will pay $500 million; and the
property owners will settle for less than
2 cents on the dollar for their losses.
Few members of the public realize
that they do not have insurance in their
own property insurance policies against
such losses. The standard policies
written by insurance companies on
homes, on farms, on factories, on office
buildings, and on other property carry
a nuclear exclusion clause. It excludes
losses from radiation caused by an
atomic powerplant or any other source.
Unfortunately, few people read the fine
print in their insurance policies, be-
cause the language used is difficult to
understand. I can assure you that
your policies covering damage to your
property contain a provision which
means that you will not be paid for loss
caused by radioactive contamination
from an atomic powerplant.
Frequently an obscure clause like
this, in an insurance policy, is com-
pletely overlooked by the public until
seme catastrophe brings it into play.
I am sure that many property owners
in Los Angeles were quite surprised to
find they had a very sizable financial
stake in the definition of an insurrec-
tion as compared to the definition of a
riot. In the event of a real atomic
powerplant catastrophe, many people
within 500 miles of the plant will be
surprised to find they must person-
ally bear 98 percent of the less of
the value of their homes and their busi-
ness property.
Mr. Chairman, if we are going to en-
courage the construction of great num-
bers of these atomic powerplants, we
owe
[p. 24046]
a duty to the public to tell them what
we are doing; that we are grant-
ing immunity to the manufacturers of
atomic powerplants and to the electric
utilities for any damages which might
be caused to their homes and their busi-
ness property, even though they have
no insurance against such loss in their
own policies and cannot obtain such
insurance; that we are thus forcing
them to assume risks which the utilities
will not assume and which the insur-
ance companies will not assume. Cer-
tainly we should not mislead the public
by stating that we are granting "pro-
tection to the public." Two cents on
the dollar is not protection.
We have several large atomic power-
-------
738
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
plants in the process of construction.
Until those plants have operated for a
long period of years, we will not know
just how dangerous such plants are.
Until we do, we should not encourage
the construction of great numbers of
large plants, at the risk of the public.
H.R. 8496 should be amended to re-
move the no recourse provision.
Mr. HECHLER. Mr. Chairman, af-
ter considerable thought and careful
examination of the issues involved in
H.R. 8496, I have decided to oppose the
pending legislation. I believe that it is
high time that we take steps to place
the nuclear power industry and its
competitors—like coal—on a fair and
equal footing. For too long, the nuclear
power industry has enjoyed the protec-
tion of an "infant industry." It has
been pampered with subsidies, exemp-
tions, and one form or another of assist-
ance. This has been done to such an
extent that the claims of its proponents
that lower power rates are produced
for the consumer are patently inaccu-
rate. If the Federal Government con-
tinues to pick up the tab, it is unfair
to claim that nuclear power is cheaper.
Essentially, the pending bill extends
another form of subsidy to the detri-
ment of the coal industry and the
miners who work in that industry. In
the first place, why does this act have
to be extended for 10 years? Surely a
shorter period of time would be a more
feasible way to handle this problem,
with a review to determine additional
steps to be taken after a few years.
Second, we have heard that the nuclear
power industry is now very safe. If
this is true, then why are we so stirred
up about providing so much insurance
and indemnities. Third, why does the
Federal Government have to get into
the insurance business in this case any-
way? Would it not be fairer and more
in keeping with the spirit of free en-
terprise to require these companies to
take out their premiums at rates closer
to those provided by private insurance
sources?
These are just a few of the reasons,
Mr. Chairman, why I oppose this bill
in its present form, and I expect to vote
against it. I trust that in the future
we may have legislation in this field
which is fairer and more objective in
relation to the great coal industry
which means so much to the strength
of the Nation's economy and its future.
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no
further requests for time, the Clerk
will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
S. 2042
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled, Tnat subsection 170 c. of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
is amended to read as follows:
"c. The Commission shall, with lespect to
licenses issued between August 30, 1954, and
August 1, 1977, for which it requires financial
piotection, agree to indemnify and hold harm-
less the licensee and other persons indemnified,
as their interest may appear, from public liabil-
ity arising from nuclear incidents which is in
excess of the level of financial protection re-
quired of the licensee. The aggregate indemnity
for all persons indemnified in connection with
each nucleai incident shall not exceed $500,000,-
000, including the reasonable costs of investigat-
ing and settling claims and defending suits for
damages: Provided, however. That this amount
of indemnity shall be reduced by the amount
that the financial piotection required shall ex-
ceed $60,000,000. Such a contract of indemnifi-
cation shall cover public liability arising out of
or in connection with the licensed activity. With
respect to any production 01 utilization facility
for which a construction permit is issued be-
tween August 30, 1954, and August 1, 1977, the
lequirements of this subsection shall apply to
any license issued for such facility subsequent
to August 1, 1977."
SEC. 2. The first two sentences of subsection
170 d. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, are amended to read as follows:
"In addition to any other authority the Com-
mission may have, the Commission is authorized
until August 1, 1977, to enter into agreements
of indemnification with its contractors for the
constiuction 01 opeiation of production or utili-
zation facilities or other activities under con-
tracts for the benefit of the United States
involving activities under the risk of public
liability for a substantial nuclear incident. In
such agreements of indemnification the Com-
mission may require its contractor to provide
and maintain financial protection of such a type
and in such amounts as the Commission shall
determine to be appropriate to cover public
liability arising out of or in connection with the
conti actual activity, and shall indemnify the
persons indemnified against such claims above
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
739
the amount of the financial protection lequired,
in the amount of $500,000,000, including the
reasonable costs of investigating and settling
claims and defending suits for damage in the
aggregate for all persons indemnified in connec-
tion with such contract and for each nuclear
incident: Provided. That this amount of indem-
nity shall be reduced by the amount that the
financial protection lequired shall exceed $60,-
000,000: Provided further. That in the case of
nuclear incidents occuning outside the United
States, the amount of the indemnity piovided by
the Commission shall not exceed $100,000,000."
SEC. 3. The filst sentence of subsection 170 e.
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
is amended to read as follows:
"The aggregate liability foi a single nucleai
incident of pel sons indemnified, including the
reasonable costs of investigating and settling
claims and defending suits for damage, shall not
exceed the sum of $500,000,000 together with the
amount of financial protection required of the
licensee or contractor: Provided, however, That
such aggregate liability shall in no event exceed
the sum of $560,000,000: Provided further, That
with respect to any nuclear incident occurring
outside of the United States to which an agree-
ment of indemnification entered into under the
provisions of subsection 170 d. is applicable,
such aggregate liability shall not exceed the
amount of $100,000,000 together with the
amount of financial protection lequired by the
contractor,"
SEC. 4. Subsection 170 k. of the Atomic En-
ergy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended by
striking out the date "August 1, 1967" wheievei
it appears and inserting in lieu thereof the date
"August 1, 1977."
SEC. 5. Subsection 170 1. of the Atomic En-
ergy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended to
read as follows:
"1. The Commission is authorized until Au-
gust 1, 1977, to enter into an agreement of in-
demnification with any pel son engaged in the
design, development, construction, operation,
repair, and maintenance or use of the nuclear-
powered ship authorized by section 716 of the
Merchant Marine Act, 1936, and designated the
'nuclear ship Savannah', In any such agieement
of indemnification the Commission may lequire
such person to piovide and maintain financial
protection of such a type and in such amounts
as the Commission shall determine to be appro-
priate to cover public liability ansing fiom a
nuclear incident in connection with such design,
development, construction, operation, repair,
maintenance or use and shall indemnify the per-
son indemnified against such claims above the
amount of the financial piotcction required, in
the amount of $500,000,000 including the reason-
able costs of investigating and settling claims
and defending suits for damage in the aggre-
gate for all pel sons indemnified in connection
with each nuclear incident: Provided, That this
amount of indemnity shall be reduced by the
amount that the financial protection required
shall exceed $60,000,000."
Mr. HOLIFIELD (interrupting the
reading of this bill). Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that further
reading of the bill be dispensed with,
that it be printed in the RECORD, and
subject to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose the further
extension of the Price-Anderson Act.
Mr. Chairman, I have never opposed
the development by private capital of
the nuclear power industry. Although
I have vigorously objected to the many
Government subsidies that have been
introduced into its framework by its
advocates in the Government and in
Congress.
I urge the rejection of H.R. 8496
which would extend the Price-Ander-
son Act for 10 years, until August 1,
1977. On the basis of the evidence,
Mr. Chairman, Price-Anderson is in
fact nothing more than a possible mas-
sive subsidy.
Within recent years atomic power
has begun to come into its own as a
source of power. Thirteen atomic
powerplants have been completed.
These plants will ultimately generate
about 1 million kilowatts of electricity.
Five more plants are under construc-
tion and when they are completed they
will add another 1.7 million kilowatts
of capacity. These 2.7 million kilowatls
of atomic electric generating capacity
will represent about 6.6 percent of the
electric utilities total capacity. Other
utilities are also considering the atomic
approach when decisions are made to
build new generating stations to sup-
ply the ever increasing demands for
energy.
The atom has become another impor-
tant source of fuel for electric power
[p. 24047]
generation. But quite obviously,
atomic power has arrived in the mar-
-------
740
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
ketplace by way of the U.S. Treasury.
The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
has paid millions of dollars in direct
subsidies to atomic powerplant design-
ers and builders as well as to those
operating atomic powerplants.
In the early 195()'s it was argued that
Federal subsidies were absolutely nec-
essary to ignite interest in development
of atomic power. It was argued that
atomic power would be needed to sup-
plement the Nation's future energy
needs. Leaders of competitive energy
source industries at that time did not
oppose Government-financed atomic
power research, even though the Na-
tion has enough low-cost conventional
fuel to serve the needs of this Nation
for generations to come. Reports of the
U.S. Geological Survey show reserves
of coal alone which would last hundreds
of years at current production levels.
When Congress passed the Price-An-
derson Act to give the public some
financial protection against the con-
sequences of a nuclear accident, this
protection took the form of public li-
ability insurance bought by the licensed
operator, with an added $500 million
indemnity provided by the Government.
Thus the combined insurance-indemni-
fication protection for each atomic
powerplant is $560 million since the
liability insurance industry will pres-
ently not sell more than $60 million
worth of coverage per plant.
However, Mr. Chairman, there is an
important provision in this law which
has not been called to the attention of
most of us and of which most of the
general public has not been made
aware. I am referring to the provision,
the no-recourse provision of the Price-
Anderson Act, which limits total li-
ability to the sum of the insurance
available plus the $500 million Govern-
ment indemnity. In other words, the
public is required, by law, to subsidize
atomic powerplants through law by be-
ing involuntary self-insurers without
compensation, for the amount of dam-
ages in excess of the $560 million.
This no-recourse provision does not
only deny protection to the taxpayer, it
actually removes protection which ordi-
narily would be available under general
rules of tort liability. I frankly have
my doubts as to the constitutionality of
this provision. In the 1956 hearings on
this matter before the Joint Committee
on Atomic Energy, the Atomic Energy
Commission stated that the approach
of limitation of liability had been care-
fully considered, but this method was
not recommended primarily because of
doubts as to constitutionality.
Normally, a claimant could sue the
corporation and proceed against the
corporate assets of those controlling
the atomic plant. In most instances
these manufacturers and operators are
worth much more than $500 million.
But not so under the Price-Anderson
shield, which limits the aggregate li-
ability to $560 million—$500 million
from the U.S. Treasury and $60 mil-
lion.
Mr. Chairman, the two basic reasons
for extending this act are obviously
without justification. The no-recourse
provision does not assure the availa-
bility of funds to satisfy public liability
claims in the event of a catastrophic
nuclear accident. And the elimination
of this provision would not deter the
growth of atomic power, because the
atomic power industry have assured
us that these plants are safe.
Then what is the real reason, the real
justification for extending this in-
equitable law? No such shield from
financial responsibility is available to
operators of conventional powerplants,
or to the public in general. I firmly
believe that this Congress should im-
mediately end the limitation of liability
in the Price-Anderson Act, and restore
to our citizens their normal legal right
to full compensation for damages.
Further, I believe that Congress should
end the $500 million indemnity protec-
tion now granted atomic powerplant
operators. If the public needs addi-
tional insurance protection, beyond the
amount available through private
sources, then the Government should
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
741
provide insurance, but at comparable
commercial rates.
As a Representative in the Congress
from a major coal-producing State in
opposing this measure I will be charged
with being oversensitive to any legisla-
tion that affects coal. However I know
that atomic fuel is reducing the quan-
tity of coal produced. I am not al-
together convinced that the economics
of nonsubsidized atomic power will
favor it over more conventional forms
of energy in the mass power generation
field. I am in complete accord with the
Federal Government doing research
that cannot be done by private indus-
try, but in this case I think the assist-
ance has continued long enough. I
know that those who live the life of
coal miners in my State feel that in a
free enterprise system such as ours,
the industry in which they work should
not be underwriting a business which
promises to eliminate their jobs and
their livelihood.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that by re-
jecting this legislation, H.R. 2042, the
ordinary legal rights of the public will
be restored and the right of all energy
industries to compete on equitable
terms for its share of the energy mar-
ket will be maintained. I believe that it
is high time that we realize that the
Government should not underwrite one
side of a business competition in Amer-
ica's free enterprise system.
The CHAIRMAN. If there are no
amendments, under the rule, the Com-
mittee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose;
and the Speaker having resumed the
chair, Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI, Chairman
of the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under con-
sideration the bill (S. 2042) to amend
section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended, pursuant to House
Resolution 579, he reported the bill
back to the House.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the third reading
of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be read a
third time, and was read the third
time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
passage of the bill.
The question was taken.
Mi-. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on the ground that a quorum
is not present and make the point of
order that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quo-
rum is not present.
The Doorkeeper will close the doors,
the Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-
sent Members, and the Clerk will call
the roll.
The question was taken; and there
were—yeas 337, nays 30, not voting
65, as follows:
So the bill was passed.
[p. 24048]
[p. 24049]
-------
742 LEGAL COMPILATION — RADIATION
l.lv TO AMEND THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS
AMENDED
October 13, 1966, P.L. 89-645, §§l(b), 2, 3, 80 Stat. 891
SEC. 1.
(b) Section 109 of such Act is amended by striking out "sub-
section 11 t. (2) or 11 aa. (2)" and inserting in lieu thereof "sub-
section 11 v. (2) or lice. (2)".
SEC. 2. Subsection 170 e. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended by deleting the last sentence.
SEC. 3. Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following
new subsections:
"m. The Commission is authorized to enter into agreements
with other indemnitors to establish coordinated procedures for the
prompt handling, investigation, and settlement of claims for public
liability. The Commission and other indemnitors may make pay-
ments to, or for the aid of, claimants for the purpose of providing
immediate assistance following a nuclear incident. Any funds
appropriated to the Commission shall be available for such pay-
ments. Such payments may be made without securing releases,
shall not constitute an admission of the liability of any person
indemnified or of any indemnitor, and shall operate as a satisfac-
tion to the extent thereof of any final settlement or judgment.
[p. 891]
"n. (1) With respect to any extraordinary nuclear occurrence
to which an insurance policy or contract furnished as proof of fi-
nancial protection or an indemnity agreement applies and which —
"(a) arises out of or results from or occurs in the course
of the construction, possession, or operation of a production or
utilization facility, or
"(b) arises out of or results from or occurs in the course
of transportation of source material, byproduct material, or
special nuclear material to or from a production or utilization
facility, or
"(c) during the course of the contract activity arises out
of or results from the possession, operation, or use by a Com-
mission contractor or subcontractor of a device utilizing
special nuclear material or byproduct material,
the Commission may incorporate provisions in indemnity agree-
ments with licensees and contractors under this section, and may
require provisions to be incorporated in insurance policies or con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 743
tracts furnished as proof of financial protection, which waive (i)
any issue or defense as to conduct of the claimant or fault of per-
sons indemnified, (ii) any issue or defense as to charitable or gov-
ernmental immunity, and (iii) any issue or defense based on any
statute of limitations if suit is instituted within three years from
the date on which the claimant first knew, or reasonably could
have known, of his injury or damage and the cause thereof, but in
no event more than ten years after the date of the nuclear incident.
The waiver of any such issue or defense shall be effective regard-
less of whether such issue or defense may otherwise be deemed
jurisdictional or relating to an element in the cause of action.
When so incorporated, such waivers shall be judicially enforcible
in accordance with their terms by the claimant against the person
indemnified. Such waivers shall not preclude a defense based upon
a failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate damages, nor shall
such waivers apply to injury or damage to a claimant or to a claim-
ant's property which is intentionally sustained by the claimant or
which results from a nuclear incident intentionally and wrong-
fully caused by the claimant. The waivers authorized in this sub-
section shall, as to indemnitors, be effective only with respect to
those obligations set forth in the insurance policies or the con-
tracts furnished as proof of financial protection and in the in-
demnity agreements. Such waivers shall not apply to, or prej-
udice the prosecution or defense of, any claim or portion of claim
which is not within the protection afforded under (i) the terms of
insurance policies or contracts furnished as proof of financial pro-
tection, or indemnity agreements, and (ii) the limit of liability
provisions of subsection 170 e.
" (2) With respect to any public liability action arising out of or
resulting from an extraordinary nuclear occurrence, the United
States district court in the district where the extraordinary nuclear
occurrence takes place, or in the case of an extraordinary nuclear
occurrence taking place outside the United States, the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia, shall have orig-
inal jurisdiction without regard to the citizenship of any party or
the amount in controversy. Upon motion of the defendant or of
the Commission, any such action pending in any State court or
United States district court shall be removed or transferred to the
United States district court having venue under this subsection.
Process of such district court shall be effective throughout the
United States.
"o. Whenever the United States district court in the district
where a nuclear incident occurs, or the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia in case of a nuclear incident
-------
744 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
occurring outside the United States, determines upon the petition
of any indemnitor or
[p. 892]
other interested person that public liability from a single nuclear
incident may exceed the limit of liability under subsection 170 e.:
"(1) Total payments made by or for all indemnitors as a
result of such nuclear incident shall not exceed 15 per centum
of such limit of liability without the prior approval of such
court;
"(2) The court shall not authorize payments in excess of
15 per centum of such limit of liability unless the court de-
termines that such payments are or will be in accordance with
a plan of distribution which has been approved by the court
or such payments are not likely to prejudice the subsequent
adoption and implementation by the court of a plan of distri-
bution pursuant to subparagraph (3) of this subsection (o);
and
"(3) The Commission shall, and any other indemnitor or
other interested person may, submit to such district court a
plan for the disposition of pending claims and for the distri-
bution of remaining funds available. Such a plan shall in-
clude an allocation of appropriate amounts for personal injury
claims, property damage claims, and possible latent injury
claims which may not be discovered until a later time. Such
court shall have all power necessary to approve, disapprove,
or modify plans proposed, or to adopt another plan; and to
determine the proportionate share of funds available for each
claimant. The Commission, any other indemnitor, and any
person indemnified shall be entitled to such orders as may be
appropriate to implement and enforce the provisions of this
section, including orders limiting the liability of the persons
indemnified, orders approving or modifying the plan, orders
staying the payment of claims and the execution of court
judgments, orders apportioning the payments to be made to
claimants, and orders permitting partial payments to be made
before final determination of the total claims. The orders of
such court shall be effective throughout the United States."
Approved October 13,1966.
[p. 893]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 745
l.lv(l) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
S. REP. No. 1605, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966)
AMENDMENTS TO THE PRICE-ANDERSON INDEMNITY
PROVISIONS OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS
AMENDED, PERTAINING TO WAIVER OF DEFENSES
SEPTEMBER 16 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 7), 1966.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. PASTORE, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 3830]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered
S. 3830 to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, re-
ports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.
SUMMARY OF THE BILL
The bill, as recommended by the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy, would amend section 170 and related sections of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, concerning private in-
surance and governmental indemnification with respect to nuclear
incidents.
1. Emergency Assistance Payments (subsec. 170 m.).—The bill
would authorize the Atomic Energy Commission to establish co-
ordinated procedures with the nuclear liability insurance pools
(Nuclear Energy Liability Insurance Association and Mutual
Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters) for the prompt handling,
investigation, and settlement of claims arising out of a nuclear
incident. In accordance with this authority the insurers and the
Commission could make financial assistance available to claimants
immediately following a nuclear incident without requiring claim-
ants to sign a release or otherwise compromise their claims. The
bill specifically provides that any such payment shall not constitute
an admission of liability but shall operate as a satisfaction to the
extent thereof of any final settlement or judgment.
2. Waiver of Defenses (subsec. 170 n. (1)).—The bill would also
authorize the AEC to incorporate provisions in its indemnity agree-
-------
746 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
ments, and to require incorporation of provisions in insurance
policies and contracts furnished as proof of financial protection,
which waive "any issue or defense as to the conduct of the claimant
or fault of persons indemnified." The primary end result of these
waivers
[p. 1]
would be to eliminate, first, any requirement that a claimant
prove negligence ("fault") in order to recover for his damages,
and second, any possible issue as to the claimant's contributory
negligence or assumption of the risk. Similar authority would be
conferred on the AEC respecting waivers of any issue or defense
as to charitable or governmental immunity of the defendant; as
well as any issue or defense based on any statute of limitations if
suit is instituted within 3 years after the victim knowns of his in-
jury and its cause, and in any event within 10 years after the
nuclear incident.
3. Extraordinary Nuclear Occurrence (subsec. 11 j.).—The bill
provides that such waivers would apply with respect to any "ex-
traordinary nuclear occurrence," as defined in the bill and ex-
plained below, which (a) arises out of or results from or occurs in
the course of the construction, possession, or operation of a produc-
tion or utilization facility, (b) arises out of or results from or
occurs in the course of transportation of source material, by-
product material, or special nuclear material to or from a produc-
tion or utilization facility, or (c) during the course of the contract
activity arises out of or results from the possession, operation, or
use by a Commission contractor or subcontractor of a device utiliz-
ing special nuclear material or byproduct material.
Under the bill the Commission would have the responsibility and
authority to determine whether an "extraordinary nuclear occur-
rence" has taken place. An extraordinary nuclear occurrence is
defined by the bill to mean—
any event causing a discharge or dispersal of source, special
nuclear, or byproduct material from its intended place of con-
finement in amounts offsite, or causing radiation levels offsite,
which the Commission determines to be substantial, and which
the Commission determines has resulted or will probably re-
sult in substantial damages to persons offsite or property off-
site.
This definition has been drafted so as to give the Commission
broad discretion in determining whether an extraordinary nuclear
occurrence has taken place. However, the Commission is required
by the bill to establish criteria in writing setting forth the basis
upon which such determination shall be made. The bill further
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 747
provides that the Commission's determination as to whether or not
an extraordinary nuclear occurrence has taken place will not be
subject to either direct or collateral administrative or judicial
review.
4. Defenses Preserved (subsec. 170 n.(l)).—The bill provides
certain exceptions to the applicability of the waivers. The waivers
shall not preclude a defense based upon a failure to take reason-
able steps to mitigate damages, nor shall they apply to injury or
damage to a claimant or to a claimant's property which is inten-
tionally sustained by the claimant or which results from a nuclear
incident intentionally and wrongfully caused by the claimant.
5. Execution of Waivers (subsec. 170 n.(l)).—It is expected
that these waivers will be executed by both the insurers and the
named insureds designated in policies of nuclear liability insur-
ance required as proof of financial protection, as well as by the
AEC and the licensees and contractors which are parties to the
Commission's indemnity agreements. Perso'ns furnishing proof
of financial protection in a form other than nuclear liability insur-
ance would similarly be required
[P. 2]
to waive defenses. Under the authority of this bill the Commission
could also require the execution of such waivers by any other person
(for example, a carrier of nuclear materials) who may be held
liable for a nuclear incident and who seeks the benefit of the in-
surance policy or contract furnished as proof of financial protec-
tion or the Commission's indemnity.
6. Consolidation of Suits (subsec. 170 n.(2)).—The bill pro-
vides that in the event of an extraordinary nuclear occurrence the
U.S. district court in the district where such occurrence takes place
(or, in the case of such an occurrence taking place outside the
United States, the U.S. District Coui't for the District of Colum-
bia) shall have original jurisdiction of any public liability action
arising out of or resulting from the occurrence, without regard to
the citizenship of any party or the amount in controversy. More-
over, the bill authorizes the possible removal to such district court
of any public liability action arising from such an occurrence pend-
ing in any State or other U.S. district court, upon motion of the
Commission or the defendant.
7. Allocation of Insurance-Indemnity Fund (subsec. 170 o.).—
Finally, whenever the U.S. district court in the district where a
nuclear incident occurs, or the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia in case of a nuclear incident occurring outside the
United States, determines that public liability from a single nuclear
incident may exceed the limit of liability established by subsection
-------
748 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
170 e. of the act, total payments made from the insurance-indem-
nity fund provided for by the act may not exceed 15 percent of
such limit of liability without the prior approval of such court.
Payments in excess of that figure could be made only after a deter-
mination by the court that they are or will be in accordance with a
plan of distribution which has been approved by the court, or are
not likely to prejudice the subsequent adoption and implementation
by the court of a plan of distribution. The Commission would be
required by the bill, and other interested persons would be author-
ized by the bill, to submit to the court a plan for the disposition of
pending claims and for the distribution of remaining funds avail-
able. Authority to implement fully the foregoing responsibilities
would also be conferred upon the court. Consistent with the pres-
ent language of the act, this authority would include the power to
limit the liability of persons indemnified.
The foregoing are the main features of the proposed legislation.
An explanation of the policy supporting the major provisions of
this bill is found in the section of this report entitled "Committee
Comments." A detailed legal analysis of the entire bill is found in
the section entitled "Section-by-Section Analysis."
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
In 1965 the Joint Committee recommended and there was en-
acted legislation (Public Law 89-210) which among other things
extended the so-called Price-Anderson indemnity provisions of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, for an additional 10
years, from August 1, 1967, to August 1, 1977. During the hear-
ings which preceded enactment of this legislation a number of
problem areas were identified relating to the means by which per-
sons suffering damage from a nuclear incident might obtain rapid
and adequate financial compensation.
There was concern expressed, for example, over the fact that
there was no assurance that all State courts would impose a rule
of strict
[p. 3]
liability in the event of a nuclear incident. Because of his
inability to prove negligence the victim in such a case might, there-
fore, go without compensation for his injury or damage. Similarly,
because of varying State law respecting the time within which
such an action may be brought, and particularly because this limi-
tation period in many States is considered inadequate for delayed
manifestation of radiation injuries, there was concern that victims
in different jurisdictions might be subjected to unequal and pos-
sibly unfair treatment.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 749
The Atomic Energy Commission, in its study to determine
whether the Price-Anderson Indemnity Act should be extended
beyond August 1, 1967, concluded that additional study should be
given to the possibility of further amending the act to establish the
basis of liability thereunder, and to enacting a uniform statute of
limitations for claims covered by the Price-Anderson Act. The
Commission indicated during the 1965 hearings that such addi-
tional study would be undertaken. Others who testified at that
time identified several related problems, and at least one witness
strongly recommended that the necessary amendments to the act
be enacted forthwith. The related issues which were identified
included (1) the difficulty that could be expected if a large number
of suits arising out of a serious nuclear incident were filed in dif-
ferent jurisdictions, (2) the problem of apportioning insurance
and indemnity funds, and (3) the lack of coordinated procedures
for the processing of claims for emergency relief.
Because of the complexities, uncertainties and matters of judg-
ment involved in these matters, the Joint Committee concluded that
further study should be given to these problems. However, rather
than delay action on the extension, the committee decided to recom-
mend the 10-year extension without taking formal action on these
related matters. Nevertheless, the committee made it clear in its
report on the extension legislation that the committee would return
to the subject at the first opportunity. The report stated:
This committee has always been vitally concerned with pro-
tecting the health and safety of the public and employees from
the potential hazards which accompany the beneficial appli-
cations of nuclear energy. The committee is equally deter-
mined that the promise to the public, contained in the
Price-Anderson Act, will not prove to be an illusory one. It is
the clear intent of this legislation that if a member of the pub-
lic ever is injured by a nuclear incident, he will not be sub-
jected to a series of substantive and procedural hurdles which
would prevent the speedy satisfaction of a legitimate claim.
With that objective in mind, the committee plans to con-
tinue to inquire into possible means of further assuring that
the public will receive prompt and adequate financial compen-
sation for any damage resulting from potential nuclear haz-
ards. Among other things, the committee expects to conduct
one or more hearings on this subject as early as practicable.
Such hearings may well indicate the need for further legisla-
tive action by Congress.'
'See S. Kept. No. 650, 89th Cong., 1st sess., p. 13.
-------
750 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
Subsequently, on November 26, 1965, in anticipation of further
inquiry into these matters by the committee during the forthcom-
ing
[p. 4]
session of Congress, the executive director of the Committee
wrote to the Commission specifically soliciting the Commission's
views on the problem areas identified during the earlier hearings.
There followed numerous meetings among the Joint Committee
and AEC staffs and representatives of private industry, including
the utility, insurance and equipment manufacturing industries.
The result of these efforts was H.R. 15913 and S. 3548, identical
bills introduced on June 23, 1966, by Congressman Melvin Price
and Senator Clinton P. Anderson.
Public hearings were held on these bills as summarized in the
next section of this report. These hearings are published under
the title "Proposed Amendments to Price-Anderson Act Relating
to Waiver of Defenses."
- The committee met in executive session on September 12, 1966,
and voted without dissent to approve certain amendments to H.R.
15913 (S. 3548) which were incorporated in "clean bills" intro-
duced on September 13, 1966, by Congressman Melvin Price as
H.R. 17685, and on September 14, 1966, by Senator Clinton P.
Anderson as S. 3830. The committee also approved the reporting
of these bills without amendment and adopted this committee
report.
HEARINGS
Public hearings on H.R. 15913 and S. 3548 were held on July 19,
20, and 21, 1966, before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.
The following witnesses appeared on behalf of the U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission:
James T. Ramey, Commissioner;
Gerald F. Tape, Commissioner;
R. E. Hollingsworth, General Manager;
Joseph F. Hennessey, General Counsel;
Bertram H. Schur, Associate General Counsel; and
Myron B. Kratzer, Director, Division of International Affairs.
Witnesses presenting the views of industry and the public are
listed below in the order of their appearance:
Edison Electric Institute, J. Harris Ward, chairman, Com-
monwealth Edison Co., Jack Kearney, member of the staff
of Edison Electric Institute, and Arthur Gehr, attorney for
Commonwealth Edison Co.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 751
United Nuclear Corp., Walter A. Hamilton, vice president.
General Public Utilities Corp., James B. Liberman, general
counsel.
Arthur W. Murphy, professor, Columbia University School of
Law.
New York State Thru way Authority, John P. MacArthur,
special counsel.
Robert Lowenstein, attorney, Washington, B.C.
Nuclear Energy Liability Insurance Association, DeRoy C.
Thomas, E. A. Cowie, Roger Fisher, and Lester Senger.
Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters, Wallace M.
Smith and James H. Merritt.
National Coal Policy Conference, Inc., Joseph E. Moody, presi-
dent.
National Coal Association, Brice O'Brien, general counsel.
[P- 5]
Samuel Edlow, Robert F. Pitcher, John J. Bell, Alvin Shapiro,
and Bernard Bechhoefer, Edlow & Isbrandtsen Associates,
American Merchant Marine Institute, and Nuclear Fuel
Services, Inc.
Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters, James H.
Merritt.
Nuclear Energy Liability Insurance Association, Roger
Fisher, Lester Senger, and Francis X. Boylan.
Nuclear Property Insurance Association, H. Sumner Stanley,
accompanied by H. S. Hirst, Mutual Atomic Energy Rein-
surance Pool.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
A. Background
The Price-Anderson Act was enacted in 1957 for a twofold pur-
pose:
First, to protect the public by assuring the availability of funds
for the payment of claims arising from a catastrophic nuclear in-
cident.
Second, to remove a deterrent to private industrial participation
in the atomic energy program which flowed from the threat of
tremendous potential liability claims. It was considered that en-
larged private participation in this program would speed the
further development of peaceful uses of atomic energy.
It is generally recognized that the possibility of a catastrophic
nuclear incident is extremely remote because of, among other
things, the safety requirements imposed by the AEG upon persons
-------
752 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
engaged in the atomic energy business. Nevertheless, an accident
of uninsurable dimensions is conceivable.
The Price-Anderson Act accordingly affords protection to the
public and to AEC licensees and contractors from the risks asso-
ciated with atomic energy by providing for a program of private
insurance and governmental indemnity amounting to a maximum
of $560 million to cover damages that conceivably could arise from
a nuclear incident.
The act further provides for a limitation of liability of all per-
sons indemnified in the event of a catastrophic nuclear incident
resulting in claims which exceed the total amount of private insur-
ance and governmental indemnity, subject, of course, to future
congressional action in light of the particular circumstances.
Since its enactment by Congress in 1957 one of the cardinal
attributes of the Price-Anderson Act has been its minimal interfer-
ence with State law. Under the Price-Anderson system, the claim-
ant's right to recover from the fund established by the act is left
to the tort law of the various States; the only interference with
State law is a potential one, in that the limitation of liability fea-
ture of the act would come into play in the exceedingly remote
contingency of a nuclear incident giving rise to damages in excess
of the amount of financial responsibility required together with the
amount of the governmental indemnity.
The policy decision to refrain from establishing the basis of
liability under the statute was made in the knowledge that there
are existing legal doctrines for imposing strict liability (i.e., lia-
bility of the defendant without the necessity of proving the
defendant's "fault") and in the belief that, in view of the "omni-
bus" type coverage of the insurance policies and indemnity agree-
ments provided for in the statute, courts would be constrained to
ignore legal niceties and impose liability upon someone on one
ground or another in the event of a nuclear incident. The belief
that strict liability would be im-
[P. 6]
posed in the event of a serious nuclear incident was, and is, shared
by many, including distinguished legal scholars.
The various international conventions on third-party liability
in the nuclear field which have been proposed for adoption since
passage of the Price-Anderson Act have taken a different approach,
however. The same may be said with respect to pertinent domestic
legislation enacted by various foreign countries. These conven-
tions and legislative enactments have specifically provided for
strict (or "absolute") liability for most nuclear incidents, and
most of them provide for channeling of liability (i.e., exclusive
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 753
liability on the part of the operator of the nuclear installation).
Another basic characteristic of these regimes is the establishment
of a period within which an injured person may initiate action to
recover for his damage.
Within our own country, attempts to establish strict liability for
nuclear incidents by State statute have met with failure. To date
not one State has adopted the "Model Nuclear Facilities Liability
Act," which was promulgated in 1961 by the National Conference
of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and approved by the
American Bar Association. The model act provides for strict
liability, channeling of liability, and a gross period of 10 years in
which to sue.
Over the years increasing criticism has been directed at the
Price-Anderson Act for its failure to establish strict liability as the
basis of liability for suits covered by the Act. While commenta-
tors generally agree that strict liability would be imposed by most
courts in the event of a large-scale nuclear incident, there are some
jurisdictions which purport to reject the doctrine of strict liability.
In these jurisdictions a claimant might be required to establish
negligence in order to recover for his damage, a burden which
might prove insurmountable where much of the relevant evidence
has been destroyed in the nuclear incident.
Moreover, and perhaps more importantly, in a sizable number
of States the law relative to strict liability is unsettled. Part of the
reason for the uncertain state of the law concerning liability for
nuclear incidents is the remarkable safety record of the nuclear
industry which, happily, has spared the courts from acting- in this
.area. It is feared by some legal experts, therefore, that the victims
.of .a nuclear incident might have to engage in protracted litigation
in these jurisdictions in order to benefit from the protection that
the Price-Anderson Act was designed to afford them.
Finally, in the case of nuclear facilities and devices operated or
used by Federal agencies, it has been observed that a victim of a
nuclear incident might be denied protection entirely because of the
"discretionary function" exception to the Federal Tort Claims
Act.
As a consequence of the foregoing, there have been suggestions
that a Federal statute should be enacted imposing strict liability
for nuclear incidents covered by the Price-Anderson Act. Advo-
cates of this proposal believe it would eliminate existing uncer-
tainties and reduce the likelihood of unequal treatment of victims.
They argue, additionally, that the appropriateness of a rule of
strict liability is clear because, while the probability that a nuclear
incident will ever occur is low, there is a possibility that great
-------
754 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
harm could result if the unexpected ever took place.
Opponents of such a Federal statute argue that it is unnecessary
and inappropriate for the Federal Government to legislate in areas
which the States are equipped to handle, particularly regarding
those
[P. 7]
matters which have been within their traditional jurisdiction.
This seems especially so, they contend, where nothing has so far
indicated that the substantive rules of existing American law will
not provide adequate protection if a nuclear incident should occur.
It has also been suggested by some that the adoption of statutory
strict liability could inhibit the development and use of atomic
energy for peaceful purposes. Such action, it is alleged, would
single out the nuclear industry as one for which extraordinary
rules of liability must be devised; it would stimulate public appre-
hension of the potential dangers of atomic activities; and it would
subject the industry to a series of harassing and unfounded claims.
Many of these same arguments have been advanced for and
against the establishment of a Federal statute of limitations for
injuries and damages arising from a nuclear incident. Students
of the subject agree that there is a problem: there is not only a
wide variation among the States in the time allowed for asserting
claims, but also a lack of recognition in many State statutes that
the results of exposure to radiation may not become evident within
the timespan normally allotted for more conventional injuries.
The basic question, again, is whether reform should be accom-
plished by State or Federal law.
As previously indicated, other potential problems under the
Price-Anderson Act have been pointed out. One of these relates
to emergency assistance payments which the insurers and the AEC
might make in the event of a nuclear incident. A question might
be raised in this connection whether the AEC could make such
payments in the absence of a final settlement with and release by
the person to whom the payment is made. Without this explicit
authority the Commission might not be able to make emergency
assistance available to deserving victims of a nuclear incident who
were unable or unwilling to enter into final settlements of their
claims shortly after the incident.
The lack of provision in the act for possible consolidation in one
Federal court of all suits arising out of a serious nuclear incident
has also been cited as a shortcoming of the present regime. A
large-scale nuclear incident might well injure persons in more than
one State. The tort and procedural laws of the several States,
however, vary in many respects. Thus one victim of a nuclear in-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 755
cident might be subject to different substantive and procedural
laws than would apply to another victim simply by reason of an
invisible State boundary line that separates them.
Moreover, in the extremely unlikely event of a nuclear disaster
involving damages approaching or exceeding the limit of liability
established by the act, knowledge by one court of what other
affected courts were doing would be essential in the orderly distri-
bution of Price-Anderson funds; however, in attempting to co-
ordinate the handling of these matters by different courts it could
be expected that efficiency would be impaired and possibly justice
delayed. A related problem which arises in this connection is that
of apportioning insurance and indemnity moneys in such a way as
to reserve sufficient funds for victims whose injuries may not be-
come manifest until long after the nuclear incident. In the event
of a nuclear catastrophe involving damages approaching or ex-
ceeding the limit of liability, the extent of property damage should
be fairly readily apparent; the determination of the amount of
bodily injury inflicted presents a much more difficult problem, how-
ever, because the existence or the extent of possible latent injuries
could not be determined with precision.
[p. 8]
Therefore, in such a case some provision would have to be made
for setting aside a "delayed injury" fund from among the total
funds available for distribution.
B. Waive)- of defenses: A preferable alternative to enactment of a
new body of Federal tort law
The question whether courts should apply legal principles akin
to those of strict liability in the event of a serious nuclear incident
seems to the committee to be free from dispute. The existing
Price-Anderson system rests on the assumption that such prin-
ciples will be so applied. All who have testified before the Joint
Committee during the past 2 years have agreed that such prin-
ciples should apply in such a case. Many have agreed also that
some Federal legislative action should be taken to assure this
result, because of existing legal uncertainties.
A similar consensus prevails concerning the need for improve-
ment in State statutes of limitations as they relate to radiation
injuries. One witness .after another coming before the committee
has acknowledged the inadequacy of the laws of many States in
this respect.
If these uncertainties are to be removed and these deficiencies
corrected, and if greater uniformity in the treatment of claimants
is to be assured—as the committee is convinced they should be—
-------
756 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
then it appears to the committee that Federal legislative action is
required. However, the committee does not believe it is necessary
to go to the length of enacting substantive law—that is, a new
body of Federal tort law—to achieve these ends. Essentially the
same result, it is believed, can be accomplished through a Federal
statute authorizing the Atomic Energy Commission to require that
participants in the nuclear industry waive certain key defenses to
liability that might otherwise be permissible under applicable
State or Federal law.
The issues and defenses that would be waived are more fully
described below in the section-by-section analysis. Suffice it to
say at this point that, generally speaking, it is intended that the
effect of these waivers will be to require a victim of an extraor-
dinary nuclear occurrence, as that term is defined in the bill, to
prove only that he or his property was damaged and that such
damage was caused by the nuclear incident. Such waivers would
be incorporated in AEC's indemnity agreements and in insurance
policies and contracts which are required by the AEC to be fur-
nished as proof of financial protection, and under mandate of
Federal statute would be judicially enforceable in accordance with
their terms.
This approach to the problems discussed above is in keeping with
the approach followed in enacting the original Price-Anderson Act
—namely, interfering with State law to the minimum extent neces-
sary. In essence, the plan adopted permits the retention of State
law with respect to the cause of action and the measure of damages,
but the requirements specified for the insurance contracts and in-
demnity agreements provide the uniform rules needed to accom-
plish the bill's objectives. This approach, moreover, cements the
new system firmly to the Price-Anderson Act without extending
the new concepts to activities not covered by that act. The objec-
tive of the committee in drafting this bill has been to perfect the
Price-Anderson law; this is not a measure designed either to ac-
complish a general revision of American tort law or to set prece-
dents for activities in other fields.
An important advantage gained from following the approach
of this bill—rather than attempting to enact a Federal statute
prescribing
[p. 9]
strict liability for some or all nuclear incidents—is the avoid-
ance of the severe difficulties that would be encountered in
securing agreement on such a statute. Even assuming that a
consensus could be obtained in favor of passage of such a statute
in principle, many complex problems would remain. Although
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 757
attempts have been made in this direction, there has been no agree-
ment reached in this country as to what would be an acceptable
version of a strict liability statute applicable to nuclear incidents.
Some of the principles of strict liability are not entirely well de-
fined, and many aspects of this problem are subject to dispute
among courts and legal scholars. Furthermore, enactment of a
Federal tort would require consideration of such matters as proof
of damages and causation, and the possibility of continued validity
of some portion of State law. This bill, on the other hand, seeks to
isolate and deal effectively with certain problem areas in existing
State and Federal law, leaving undisturbed the remaining body of
the law.
Most important of all, perhaps, the means of accomplishing the
desired objective reflected in this bill has the support of industry,
including the insurance segment of the nuclear industry. The vast
majority of witnesses testifying before the committee strongly
favored this approach in lieu of enactment of a new Federal tort.
The lone witness who said he would prefer to see Congress enact
a Federal law of liability nevertheless agreed that if that alterna-
tive were not feasible a system of waivers would be a workable
and acceptable solution to the problem. All who testified recog-
nized that there are differing points of view—some of them very
strongly held—within industry and the legal profession on the
question of enactment of a Federal strict liability statute applica-
ble to nuclear incidents. The unique system of waivers contem-
plated by this bill avoids these differences of opinion surrounding
such a statute; at the same time it accomplishes essentially the
same result.
The path charted by this bill not only substantially improves the
protection of the public but gives strong indication of continuing
and strengthening the partnership between Government and pri-
vate industry that has characterized the Price-Anderson insurance
and indemnity system throughout its 9 years of operation. The
rather unique system which the Price-Anderson Act represents
has been made possible by an exceptionally high degree of Gov-
ernment-industry cooperation and accommodation. This spirit of
cooperation must continue to prevail if the act is to remain a mean-
ingful amalgam of public and private responsibility. The com-
mittee therefore believes that the approach set out by this bill is
to be preferred over equally efficacious but perhaps more divisive
means to achieve the same goal. The committee also wishes to
note specifically the highly constructive role played by representa-
tives of the nuclear industry, including the nuclear insurance in-
dustry, in developing this proposed legislation. In the committee's
-------
758 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
view, this type of Government-industry cooperation should serve
as a model for action in other areas of mutual concern.
C. The concept of "extraordinary nuclear occurrence"
One of the Price-Anderson Act's two principal purposes is to
protect the public by assuring the availability of funds for the pay-
ment of claims arising from a catastrophic nuclear incident.
Hence, the necessity for the Price-Anderson Act has always been
related to the remote possibility of a catastrophic, or at least seri-
ous, nuclear incident. "Catastrophe" protection is provided by a
governmental in-
[p. 10]
demnity of up to $500 million beyond the amount of private
financial protection which the act requires be furnished by licensed
nuclear facility operators.
Although the Price-Anderson governmental indemnity system
was designed to become operative only in situations where any
private financial protection required has first been exhausted, the
beneficial aspects of the bill recommended by the committee are
not so limited. For example, a nuclear incident need not reach
catastrophic proportions, or involve Government funds, before the
waivers of defenses contemplated by this bill would apply. Indeed,
an incident involving only a very small fraction of the amount of
private insurance available could well fall within the system of
waivers. At the same time, however, the bill has been drafted so
that minor claims involving nuclear facilities or materials may
remain subject to the traditional rules of tort law. This has been
accomplished by confining the applicability of the waivers to "ex-
traordinary nuclear occurrences."
The inclusion of the "extraordinary nuclear occurrence" concept
in the bill stems in major part from the desire of industry to
preserve its customary legal defenses in situations where nothing
untoward or unusual has occurred in the conduct of nuclear activ-
ities. Expressions of concern over the possibility that waivers
applicable to any "nuclear incident" would expose nuclear opera-
tors to a large number of nuisance suits were voiced by various
segments of the industry. The view seems widely held by industry
representatives that they should be able to assert defenses per-
mitted by State law in circumstances where the plaintiff's claim
may be spurious. It has also been argued that relatively minor
claims lodged against nuclear facility operators do not represent
the major public hazard against which the Price-Anderson Act
was designed to provide protection. Hence, it is urged that the
application of the waivers should be limited to serious incidents.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 759
The committee recognizes that inclusion of the "extraordinary
nuclear occurrence" concept in this bill adds very considerably to
the complexity of implementing the proposed legislation. The
committee has also considered very carefully the arguments in
favor of eliminating this concept. Nevertheless the committee is
of the opinion, on balance, that there is no pressing need to invoke
the mechanisms and procedures of the special waivers in situa-
tions which are not exceptional and which can well be taken care
of by the traditional system of tort law. Accordingly, in the ab-
sence of some extraordinary occurrence involving a nuclear facility
or device or nuclear materials, traditional concepts should be al-
lowed to prevail. For this reason, and for the additional purpose
of helping to assure that the waiver system will not be invoked in
case of nuisance suits, the committee believes that a reasonable
threshold should be satisfied before the special waiver provisions
of the bill become operative. In reaching this determination, the
committee is also mindful that the special waivers authorized by
this bill would deprive a defendant of certain defenses which
might well be available to him even in a jurisdiction which would
apply the doctrine of strict liability to a minor nuclear incident.
This threshold is identified by the term "extraordinary nuclear
occurrence." After considerable study, it was determined advis-
able to vest the Commission with authority to determine whether
an "extraordinary nuclear occurrence" has taken place, rather
than to define such an occurrence in the bill. This decision rested
in large
[P. HI
measure on the difficulty of fixing- a definition which would
be suitable for a wide variety of circumstances, and the need for
application of informed judgment to the facts of a particular case.
The possibility of litigation over the application of a statutory
definition to a specific case was also considered, which could frus-
trate the purposes of the proposed legislation. A more detailed
discussion of the basis for determination by the Commission
whether an "extraordinary nuclear occurrence" has taken place
is found in the section-by-section analysis portion of this report.
The Commission is accorded wide latitude under the bill to de-
termine whether or not such an "extraordinary nuclear occur-
rence" has taken place. The discretion conferred on the AEC is
such that an event involving relatively small amounts of demon-
strable damage could be held to be an "extraordinary nuclear oc-
currence." Once such a determination has been made the waivers
would be fully applicable. Absent such a determination, a claim-
ant would have exactly the same rights that he has today under
-------
760 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
existing law—including, perhaps, benefit of a rule of strict liability
if applicable State law so provides. Thus, this bill in no way pro-
vides for deprivation of a claimant's existing rights.
The bill requires that the Commission establish criteria in writ-
ing setting forth the basis upon which such determination would
be made in a particular case. The adoption and amendment of
these criteria would be subject to rulemaking procedures, thus as-
suring that the public, various segments of the nuclear industry,
and other interested persons will be afforded the opportunity to
comment upon any proposed criteria prior to their final issuance.
It is intended, however, that the Commission's determination as to
whether an extraordinary nuclear occurrence has or has not taken
place shall be deemed adjudication within the meaning of the
Administrative Procedure Act; and that such cases of adjudica-
tion need not be determined on the record after opportunity for
an agency hearing.
Because of the emergency nature of the system and the need for
prompt action, the committee believes that the Commission's de-
termination as to whether an "extraordinary nuclear occurrence"
has or has not taken place should not be subject to judicial review.
Aside from the fact that the Commission, from the standpoint of
expertise, is in the best position to make the various findings neces-
sary for any such determination, provision for normal judicial
review of the Commission's determination would permit of the
delays which inevitably flow from the appellate process. Such
delays might subvert the whole purpose of the special system.
D. Emergency assistance payments
One of the most beneficial aspects of the bill recommended by the
committee may well be the provision for rendition of emergency
assistance payments by the insurers and the AEC to victims of a
nuclear incident. The private insurance companies are, of course,
presently free to make emergency assistance payments without re-
quiring final settlements or releases, and the committee under-
stands that this practice is frequently followed with respect to
other types of insurance coverage.
The extent of the Commission's present authority to make
emergency assistance payments is not clear. This bill would
remove this uncertainty. The bill would confer upon the Commis-
sion the authority to make financial assistance available to claim-
ants immediately
[p. 12]
following a nuclear incident without requiring claimants to
sign a release or otherwise compromise their claims. Under
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 761
this authority payments for such immediate necessities as
food and shelter, medical and hospital expenses, and the like could
be made to claimants on an emergency basis during the interim
period before final settlements of claims are made. All that will be
required of the claimant is an appropriate receipt signifying de-
livery of the partial payment, such payment to be credited against
any final settlement or judgment. This authority, together with
the Commission's authority to establish coordinated procedures
with the private insurance pools for the prompt handling, investi-
gation, and settlement of such claims, should help to ease the im-
mediate problems arising from a serious nuclear incident.
The emergency assistance contemplated by the bill may be ren-
dered by the insurers and the Commission in the event of any
nuclear incident, whether or not the incident has been determined
to be an "extraordinary nuclear occurrence." However, as noted
below, the Commission could not make emergency assistance pay-
ments unless it appears to the Commission that any underlying
financial protection required was likely to be exhausted. More-
over, the bill imposes no limit on the amount of money which
could be paid to any individual victim of the incident; the com-
mittee believes it unwise to set a statutory ceiling on the amounts
which the Commission could pay to victims, because the amount of
damages would not be the same for all claimants. Flexibility is the
keynote to this section of the bill and should not be discarded in the
one area perhaps most difficult to predict with precision; namely,
the extent of the assistance required by individual victims of the
incident.
It should be noted in this connection, however, that the bill does
establish an overall limit on the total amount of funds that can be
dispersed without prior court approval where it appears that the
damages arising from a nuclear incident may exceed the aggregate
liability of the persons indemnified. In such case no more than 15
percent of the total funds available (i.e., 15 percent of $560 million
in the case of large nuclear power reactors) could be distributed
without the prior approval of the plan of distribution by the U.S.
district court having jurisdiction. This measure would, of course,
come into play only in the highly remote contingency of a nuclear
catastrophe, and would prevent any unfairness in the distribution
of funds in such a case. The method under which moneys in excess
of the 15-percent limitation would be distributed is more fully
described below in the section entitled "Allocation of Insurance
and Indemnity Funds."
As noted above, emergency assistance payments may be made
whether or not the nuclear incident has been determined by the
-------
762 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
Commission to be an "extraordinary nuclear occurrence." Of
course, until such determination is made the special waiver-of-
defenses system established by other provisions of the bill will not
have been invoked. Nevertheless, pending a determination of
whether or not the incident is "extraordinary," the insurers and
the Commission would be expected by the committee to make
emergency assistance payments in the spirit of the statute. It is
anticipated that payments could be made on the basis of submittal
by a claimant of an approved claim form alleging that the cause
of his personal injury or property damage was the nuclear inci-
dent. If it appears from the nature of the injury or damage and
from other relevant factors that the nuclear incident could reason-
ably have been the cause thereof, emergency
[p. 13]
relief could be given. To this extent a showing of probable causal
relationship between the incident and the injury would be required,
but no greater burden than this need be imposed on the claimant.
Of course, care would be exercised to try to assure that interim
payments will not be made for unfounded claims.
If a nuclear incident were to occur at a facility covered by un-
derlying financial protection and the amount of financial protection
were not likely to be exhausted by the resulting claims, the insur-
ance pools would have the primary responsibility of handling
emergency relief and making settlement of claims. Under the
Price-Anderson Act, Government funds are to be expended only
where there is no underlying financial protection or where that
which was required is likely to be exhausted. The Commission and
the insurance pools have, accordingly, established settlement and
adjustment procedures for each of three possible contingencies:
(1) where claims would be paid only by insurance, (2) where
claims would be paid from both insurance and Price-Anderson
funds, and (3) where payment would be entirely from Govern-
ment funds. These existing arrangements would be revised to pro-
vide for the new settlement procedures and interim payments
authorized by this bill.
Emergency financial assistance to victims of a nuclear incident
immediately upon the happening thereof, without necessarily ob-
taining a release from the victim, should prove helpful in solving
problems related to delayed manifestations of radiation injury.
As noted above in the discussion concerning the need for an ex-
tended limitation period for injuries arising from radiation, the
full extent of a radiation-caused injury may not become evident
until long after the causal event. Yet, under the usual legal rules
of merger and res judicata, a victim who brings suit and recovers
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 763
for his immediate damages prior to manifestation of delayed in-
juries may find that no further damages are recoverable in a sub-
sequent suit.
The interim payments procedures called for in this bill offer
desirable flexibility for the insurance pools and the Commission to
make funds available where there is demonstrable personal injury
or property damage within a reasonably short time after an oc-
currence. Thus, claimants would receive immediate relief even
though the full extent of their injuries could not be immediately
determined so as to permit a final settlement. Since no release
would be required, further payments could be made for injuries
of delayed emergence occurring within the limitations period,
which period in the case of an extraordinary nuclear occurrence
could be expanded to a maximum of 10 years by the waiver pro-
visions of the bill. To this extent, therefore, this bill avoids the
problem under existing law caused by the inability of claimants
to split their causes of action.
It is reasonable to believe that the foregoing procedures, when
coupled with the Commission's authority to enter into final settle-
ments of claims, should result in the administrative processing of
most claims arising from a nuclear incident. This, of course,
would be all to the good for, in addition to saving claimants the
time and expense of initiating litigation, the administrative proc-
essing of most claims would lessen the burdens that could other-
wise fall upon the courts.
[p. 14]
E. Consolidation of suits in a single Federal court
The motive that has impelled many of the bill's provisions dis-
cussed above—namely, the desire for more equitable and uniform
treatment of victims of a nuclear incident—has also led the com-
mittee to include in the bill a provision authorizing the possible
consolidation in one U.S. district court of all law suits arising from
an "extraordinary nuclear occurrence."
The bill confers upon the Federal district court in the district
where the occurrence takes place original jurisdiction with respect
to any public liability action arising out of or resulting from any
such occurrence, without regard to the citizenship of any party or
the amount in controversy. (Similar jurisdiction is reposed in the
Federal district court for the District of Columbia in the case of an
extraordinary nuclear occurrence taking place outside of the
United States.) Additionally, and most importantly, the bill
makes provision for the possible removal to such district court of
any action pending in any State or other Federal district court
upon motion of the Commission or defendant. This latter measure
-------
764 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
stems from the committee's recognition of the need to assure
means of coordinated handling of all phases of litigation that could
result from a large nuclear incident notwithstanding concerted
settlement efforts.
While the committee believes that relatively few claims arising
from such an incident would actually require litigation, a claimant
who does feel constrained to take his claim to court should not be
subjected to procedural requirements different from those which
some other claimant might face. This bill would authorize all such
claimants to sue in the same Federal district court, generally un-
der the same rules of procedure. The bill, moreover, makes it
possible, although it does not require, that all suits stemming from
the extraordinary nuclear occurrence be litigated in one court—the
United States district court located in the district where the ex-
traordinary nuclear occurrence takes place. If the circumstances
of the occurrence and the damage actions did not appear to the
Commission or to the defendant to necessitate removal to this
single Federal court, an action started in a State court or other
Federal court could of course proceed to judgment in that court.
The absolute right of removal is important because it provides a
mechanism for bringing before the same court all cases arising
from the same set of circumstances—circumstances with which
the court would become thoroughly familiar. Claimants and de-
fendants would become acquainted with the approach taken by the
court, the taking of depositions and other evidentiary problems
would be simplified, and this would seem to be a deterrent to an ex-
cess number of cases actually going to trial. The end result, it is
believed, would be more expeditious and uniform treatment of all
parties. With no issue of the defendant's fault to litigate, the one
court could direct itself to causal relationships and damages and
would be in a position of continuing familiarity with all the facts
necessary in passing on plans relative to distribution of funds and
orders submitted for court approval. In the event that there is a
relatively large volume of cases to be litigated, additional Federal
judges could be assigned to assist the judges normally presiding in
the district.
[p. 15]
The constitutional authority of Congress to confer such original
jurisdiction upon the Federal courts and to provide for the possible
removal of State court and other Federal court actions to a des-
ignated Federal court seems clear. The committee is convinced, as
is the executive branch,2 that the conferral of these authorities
- See "Proposed Amendments to Price-Anderson Act Relating to Waiver of Defenses," hearings
before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, July 19, 20, and 21, 1966, p. 37.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 765
upon the Federal judiciary is within the ambit of Congress' con-
stitutional powers. Paramount among the constitutional powers
which may be relied upon in connection with Federal legislation on
the matter of an "extraordinary nuclear occurrence" is the power
to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the sev-
eral States. The relation to interstate commerce of a nuclear
event of such magnitude is manifest. Not only would the mate-
rials involved in such an occurrence in all likelihood have crossed
State lines in moving to the nuclear facility, but the radiation and
radioactive particles released by the event might well cross State
boundaries in their flight. The disruptive effect which such an
occurrence could have upon interstate commerce hardly needs
elucidation. These considerations fairly compel the conclusion
that an "extraordinary nuclear occurrence," as defined in the bill,
is inexorably related to interstate commerce and subject to Con-
gress' constitutional authority to regulate, control, foster, and pro-
tect the same.
F. Allocation of insurance and indemnity funds in case of
catastrophe
During the committee's 1965 hearings concerning the Price-
Anderson Act questions were raised relative to the desirability, in
the administration of the insurance and indemnity fund made
available by the act, of making appropriate allocations between
personal injury and property damage as well for possible personal
injuries of delayed manifestation. Concern was expressed in this
connection that absent such a system of allocation a catastrophic
nuclear incident involving damages approaching or in excess of
the act's limit of liability might result in disproportionate sharing
of the available funds and, possibly, exhaustion of the total fund
prior to emergence of possible latent injuries in some victims.
In the year that has ensued since the 1965 hearings additional
study has been given to these problems. It is evident that any plan
of distribution must be responsive to the needs of the particular
situation, and that therefore a specific legislative plan in advance
of a large-scale nuclear incident is not feasible. The best solution
to the problem, it appears, is to repose considerable discretion in
the judiciary, with appropriate modification of the act to assure
that funds disbursed in the event of a serious nuclear incident are
distributed only in accordance with a court-approved plan of
distribution.
To this end the bill recommended by the committee would amend
the Price-Anderson Act to add authority to that which the act
(subsection 170 e.) presently vests in the Federal judiciary to
-------
766 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
oversee the distribution of funds in cases where public liability is
likely to exceed the limit of liability. Specifically, the bill provides
that whenever the U.S. district court in the district where a
nuclear incident occurs determines that such limit of liability is
likely to be exceeded, total payments from the Price-Anderson
insurance-indemnity fund shall not exceed 15 percent of the limit
of liability without prior approval
[p. 16]
of the court. This limitation, it must be emphasized, applies only
in the highly improbable event that the aggregate liability of the
persons indemnified is likely to be exceeded. Further, it is pro-
vided that the court shall not authorize payments in excess of the
15 percent ceiling unless the court determines that such payments
are or will be in accordance with a plan of distribution which has
been approved by the court, or such payments are not likely to
prejudice the subsequent adoption and implementation by the court
of such a plan.
These provisions leave the Commission and the insurance pools
free to distribute ample funds (up to a maximum of $84 million)
in the form of emergency assistance and settlements while assur-
ing that the bulk of the fund will be disbursed only after the court
has passed judgment upon the feasibility of the plan of distribu-
tion of the remaining funds. In this connection it should be noted
that the bill affords any interested person the opportunity to sub-
mit a proposed distribution plan to the court for its consideration,
but specifically directs the Atomic Energy Commission to submit
such a plan. The plan submitted to the court must include an al-
location of appropriate amounts for personal injury claims, prop-
erty damage claims, the possible latent injury claims which may
not be discovered until a later time. Additional authorities to im-
plement fully the foregoing provisions are conferred on the court
by this bill.
The likelihood that the need to use these provisions will ever
arise is exceedingly remote. Nevertheless, so long as even the
theoretical possibility exists that such a need may arise, Congress
should act accordingly. Whatever precautionary steps can rea-
sonably be taken in advance to guard against and provide for the
unexpected should be taken. It is with this purpose in mind that
the foregoing revisions in the law are recommended. On the other
hand, the committee is of the view with respect to this and other
theoretical problems that could arise under the Price-Anderson
legislation that there is no need to attempt to anticipate all such
problems, or to develop unduly detailed arrangements which will
probably never be called into play.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 767
Not foreclosed, of course, are the actions which could be taken
after the actual occurrence of a disastrous nuclear incident.
Should the highly unlikely nevertheless come to pass, further con-
gressional review of the situation would undoubtedly be under-
taken with the view to possible action by Congress in the light of
the particular incident. One obvious possibility, of course, would
be for Congress to increase the limit of the Commission's re-
' sponsibility under its indemnity agreements. This possibility was
specifically recognized in the Joint Committee's report on the orig-
inal Price-Anderson bills,3 and in the committee's report last year
recommending a 10-year extension of this legislation.4 Another
and perhaps complementary possibility, one that might be fol-
lowed in the event that a flood of court cases arose from a nuclear
incident in a Federal district court which found itself unable to
dispose of them without delay, would be for Congress
[p. 17]
to provide within a reasonable time after the incident for disposi-
tion of the claims on an administrative basis. As noted above, the
committee does not believe it necessary at this time to attempt to
resolve all the problems which such contingencies might present.
G. Other important policy considerations
Discussed below are some of the other important policy con-
siderations which shaped the bill recommended by the committee.
1. Improvement of position of transportation industries.—
About 1959 the conventional fire and property insurance carriers
adopted a nuclear exclusion clause, as follows, which was inserted
in existing policies:
This policy does not insure against loss by nuclear reaction,
or nuclear radiation, or radioactive contamination, all
whether controlled, or uncontrolled, and whether such loss
be direct or indirect, proximate or remote, or be in whole or in
part caused by, contributed to, or aggravated by the peril (s)
insured against in this policy; however, subject to the fore-
going and all provisions of this policy, direct loss by fire
3 The committee's lepoit (S. Rept. 290, 85th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 21 and 22), stated: "* * * the
limit of the Commission's lesponsibihty under these | indemnity] agreements is to be $500 million.
This limit could be subject to upwai'd levision by the Congiess in the event of any one particular
incident in which, after fuithei congiessional study, the Congiess felt moie appiopriations would
be in order.
*******
"Subsection e limits the liability of the peisons indemnified for each nuclear incident to $500
million together with the amount of financial piotection requhed. Of course, Congress can change
this act at any time after any paiticular incident. The Joint Committee wanted to be sure that
any such changes in the act would be consideied by it in the light of the particular incident."
1 See S. Rept. 650, 89th Cong., 1st sess., pp. 6-7.
-------
768 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
resulting from nuclear reaction, or nuclear radiation, or radio-
active contamination is insured against by this policy.
The above exclusion of first-party property damage and loss of
revenue coverage against the radioactive materials hazard was
adopted by the insurance industry because of the formation of in-
surance pools (NELIA/MAELU and NEPIA/MAERP) which is-
sued policies insuring against third-party liability and property
damage arising out of nuclear risks. However, the nuclear exclu-
sion in the conventional first-party property insurance policies ap-
plies without regard to whether or not the nuclear incident falls
within the scope of the Price-Anderson indemnity system, which
applies to nuclear reactors and certain other atomic energy
operations.
The existence of this nuclear exclusion has been a continuing
source of concern to bridge, tunnel, port, and toll road authorities.
Among other problems, they believe they have had no way of as-
suring themselves that a nuclear shipment about to be conveyed
over or through their facilities is in fact covered by nuclear li-
ability insurance and Price-Anderson indemnity protection. Cer-
tain railroads engaged in the transportation of nuclear materials
have voiced similar concern. To alleviate this problem the Com-
mission has offered to issue a certification in appropriate form at
the time of delivery to the carrier of radioactive material covered
by Price-Anderson, which would certify that the specific materials,
during specified transportation, are covered by a specified indem-
nity agreement.
More troublesome, perhaps, to the bridge, tunnel and like au-
thorities has been the fact that they could not recover against
NELIA/MAELU or the Commission for damage to the authority's
own property without establishing liability on the part of a specific
defendant or defendants. The authorities have feared that in-
ability to prove negligence might result in their going uncom-
pensated for destruction of, or damage to, their facilities and for
sizable losses of revenues. As a result, many of the authorities
have excluded from their facilities carriers of materials of the type
subject to the nuclear exclusion clause. In order to eliminate this
uncertainty one authority has recommended an amendment to the
Price-Anderson Act which would establish
[p. 18]
a rule of absolute liability, and the authorities generally have sug-
gested that the nuclear liability insurance policies and Price-
Anderson indemnity agreements should discard the requirement
of "legal liability."
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 769
This bill should assist substantially in meeting the objections of
the bridge, tunnel, and like authorities to the scope of the Price-
Anderson Act. Accordingly, it should help to remove any current
obstacles to transportation of atomic energy materials over the
facilities of these authorities.
The system of waivers provided for by the bill would eliminate
any issue of negligence in case of an event determined by the Com-
mission to be an "extraordinary nuclear occurrence." The Com-
mission has testified that an event resulting in damages in excess
of $5 million would in all probability be determined to be an "ex-
traordinary nuclear occurrence," while an event resulting in dam-
ages less than that could be so held (in accordance with published
criteria) depending on the surrounding circumstances. In this
connection the committee urges the Commission to be particularly
mindful of the special problems associated with transportation of
radioactive materials.
The committee also commends the continuing efforts of the
bridge, tunnel, and like authorities, and the insurance industry, to
resolve the remaining problems in this area.
2. Flexibility afforded the Commission in establishing conditions
of waivers.—A fundamental characteristic of this bill is that it
authorizes, rather than requires, specific action on the part of the
AEG. Hence the conditions of the waivers to be incorporated in
insurance policies or contracts furnished as proof of financial pro-
tection, and in AEC's indemnity agreements, are of utmost im-
portance. These are the provisions to which the courts will be
expected to look to determine the rights of the parties in litigation.
The Commission is accorded flexibility in establishing the con-
ditions of the waivers authorized by the bill. The establishment of
these conditions, both with respect to the insurance policies or con-
tracts furnished as proof of financial protection and the indemnity
agreements, will be accomplished in accordance with rulemaking
proceedings. It is the committee's considered opinion that the
technical and legal complexities and matters of expert judgment
involved lend themselves more readily to administrative rulemak-
ing proceedings than to legislative resolution.
However, the Commission's discretion in this regard is not en-
tirely unfettered. The outer boundaries of the Commission's au-
thority are delineated by the proposed subsection 170 n. of the act
to be added by this bill. Moreover, much of what the Commission
may do within these limits has already been given specific direction
by the Commission's testimony on the bill and the guidance con-
tained in this committee report. Furthermore, where it remains
for the Commission to make the important and difficult decisions
-------
770 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
with respect to the contents and applicability of waivers that are
necessary in implementation of the bill, the decisionmaking will be
subject to rulemaking proceedings. This assures that industry
and the public will have full opportunity to comment upon the
proposed waivers prior to their final adoption. Lastly, the Com-
mission under its statutory obligation to keep the Joint Committee
"fully and currently informed"
[P. 19]
will be expected, as is customary, to work closely with the com-
mittee in assuring that the legislative purpose is effectuated.
Apart from the formulation of the conditions of the waivers, one
of the important issues to be faced by the Commission relates to
their applicability. The Commission will have to decide, for ex-
ample, whether such waivers are to be incorporated in indemnity
agreements covering the N. S. Savannah and in certain other in-
demnity agreements covering nuclear incidents occurring abroad.
The arguments for and against doing so will have to be given
careful consideration by the Commission.
With respect to nuclear incidents occurring domestically, the bill
has been drawn so that the Commission has been authorized to re-
quire, in both its indemnity agreements and in the insurance pol-
icies and contracts furnished as proof of financial protection,
waivers by the person most likely to be named as the defendant,
or one of the defendants, in a damage action—namely, the private
licensee, Commission contractor, or Federal agency using, ship-
ping, or receiving the nuclear facility, device, or material giving
rise to the extraordinary nuclear occurrence. It is likely that the
waivers of defenses by these nuclear operators will be so drawn
by the Commission as to cover situations arising not only when the
nuclear material involved in the incident is in their possession but
also when the material is being transported to or from their in-
stallation. Additionally, the Commission has said it plans to re-
quire waivers by other persons (for example, carriers of nuclear
materials) who, though not parties to an insurance policy or in-
demnity agreement, are "persons indemnified" under the act and
may be held liable for the nuclear occurrence. It is anticipated
that waivers from such persons would be required as a condition of
receiving the benefit of the insurance policies and Price-Anderson
indemnity agreements. Of course, the Commission and other "in-
demnitors," as defined in this bill, would also waive defenses.
3. Period of statute of limitations.—The bill provides that the
Commission may incorporate provisions in indemnity agreements
and require provisions to be incorporated in policies or contracts
furnished as proof of financial protection which waive—
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 771
any issue or defense based on any statute of limitations if suit
is instituted within thiee years from the date on which the
claimant first knew, or reasonably could have known, of his
injury or damage and the cause thereof, but in no event more
than ten years after the date of the nuclear incident.
The 10-year gross limitations period which this bill establishes
is a more equitable time period for asserting- radiation-caused per-
sonal injury claims than is afforded under the laws of many States.
The 10-year period settled upon by the committee is consistent with
the gross period provided for in the Vienna Convention on Civil
Liability for Nuclear Damage (1963), the Brussels Convention on
the Liability of Operators of Nuclear Ships (1962), the Paris Con-
vention on Third-Paity Liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy
(1960), and the laws of several foreign countries. This period
also coincides with that which was recommended by the National
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in 1961.
Some commentators, however, have argued that while medical
evidence is far from conclusive, there is indication that some
radiation injuries may not become evident from 10 to 30 years,
and perhaps
[p. 20]
even up to 50 years, after the radiation exposure. It is to be noted
in this connection that many European countries have established
a more liberal 30-year cutoff on such claims.
Those who have studied the question agree that it is difficult to
suggest a "magic number" which will strike an equitable balance
between the need to quiet stale claims and the need to assure vic-
tims a reasonable time in which to discover and assert their claims.
It seems clear that the problem of delayed manifestation of in-
jury will require continued study. If further studies demonstrate
the desirability of extending the period, and if necessary action to
improve their limitations statutes is not forthcoming from the
States, the Joint Committee may consider the possibility of ex-
tending the length of the period waived under this bill. In the
meantime, the 10-year period provided for by this bill represents
a significant improvement over the limitations periods provided by
many of the States. It is noted that the States have made con-
siderable progress in recent years in improving their statutes of
limitations applicable to radiation injuries subject to workmen's
compensation.
It should also be noted that the 10-year period is not a maximum
period for assertion of Price-Anderson covered claims, since the
waiver authorized by the bill serves only to avoid the application
of more restrictive State statutes of limitations. Such waiver
-------
772 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
leaves undisturbed the laws of those States which have enacted—
or in the future may enact—longer periods of limitation. More-
over, it is intended that the waivers of other defenses, as author-
ized by this bill, would continue during such longer period of
limitation established by State statute.
4. Limitation of special waivers to certain categories of ac-
tivities.—The bill provides that the special waivers of defenses
shall apply only to extraordinary nuclear occurrences which arise
out of certain categories of activities presently covered by the
Price-Anderson indemnity system, including the operation of nu-
clear reactors. This limitation is designed to restrict the special
waivers to those activities which have a potential already identified
for causing an extraordinary nuclear occurrence. There seems to
be no pressing reason at this time to extend the special waivers to
other activities for which the Commission does not presently exer-
cise its authority under the Price-Anderson Act to require proof of
financial protection by licensees of the Commission.
The committee understands that the Commission may in the
future require proof of financial protection with respect to cate-
gories of activities not covered by this bill. At such time the
Commission and the committee may consider whether legislation to
enlarge such categories would be desirable.
5. Proof of biological damage in alleged radiation injury cases.
—The committee continues to recognize that the problem of proc-
essing- radiation injury cases, including the determination of
whether a particular biological damage has been caused by a par-
ticular exposure to radiation, remains a substantial one. Although
this bill can eliminate some of the major legal obstacles that might
confront a claimant in the event of a nuclear incident, the bill does
not purport to cure the problems of proving causal relationships
between radiation exposure arising from a nuclear incident—
whether or not it is an "extraordinary nuclear occurrence"—and
alleged radiation injury. In many cases, the proof of such rela-
tionship can be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible.
[p. 21]
The committee supports continued study by the Commission,
with other interested agencies of Government, of the effects of
radiation upon man. The results of this effort should help to pro-
vide the basic scientific information needed to assist in establish-
ing the validity of claims based upon alleged radiation injury. In
this connection, the fiscal year 1967 authorization act for the AEC
(Public Law 89-428) included the sum of $86 million for the Com-
mission's biology and medicine program.
6. International nuclear liability conventions.—The United
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 773
States has participated extensively in the development of inter-
national conventions dealing with third-party liability in the field
of nuclear energy. At least one of these conventions, as supple-
mented—the Paris Convention—will likely come into force before
long.
The committee recognizes that there are clear advantages, in
principle, to the development of acceptable international conven-
tions in this field. As stated in the committee's 1965 report on the
10-year extension of the Price-Anderson Act:
There is little reason to doubt that the problems of third-
party liability involving international and maritime nuclear
energy transactions will become more pronounced with time,
in the absence of effective international agreements covering
these subjects.5
The committee's hearings this year provided evidence that the
problems of ocean transportation of nuclear materials are indeed
becoming more acute. Nevertheless, there remain a number of
problems which prevent adherence by the United States to any of
these conventions as a means cf resolving any difficulties which
have been identified.
It is the committee's belief that enactment of the legislation rec-
ommended in this report will assist in the resolution of some of the
problems which have prevented the United States from adhering
to any of the conventions. The committee further believes this
general subject warrants continued close attention by the executive
and legislative branches, and by the nuclear industry.
CONCLUSION
The Price-Anderson Act is clearly recognized as one of the cor-
nerstones of the nuclear industry. In the 9 years of its existence,
this act has well served its principal purpose of protecting the pub-
lic and removing the deterrent to private industrial participation
in the atomic energy program.
Nevertheless, the committee believes the Price-Anderson Act
should be amended to provide for the waiver of certain defenses to
legal liability which might frustrate the purposes of this remedial
legislation, and to resolve a number of uncertainties as to the ad-
ministration of the current system.
It is the committee's view that the bill recommended herein is
the most appropriate and effective means to accomplish the pur-
poses discussed in this report. The committee further considers
'- S. Rept. No. 650, 89th Cong., 1st suss., p. 14.
-------
774 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
that this bill significantly improves the protection to the public
which is afforded by the Price-Anderson legislation, without op-
erating to the detriment of the nuclear industry.
[p. 22]
Finally, it should be noted that considerable effort will be re-
quired to implement fully the provisions of this bill. It may be
that this effort will demonstrate the need for additional legislation
to further the purposes discussed herein. The committee agrees
with the testimony of one distinguished witness, who has been as-
sociated with the Price-Anderson indemnity legislation since its
inception, that the amendments proposed in this bill are potentially
the most far reaching since the act was passed in 1957. The con-
tinued close cooperation of private industry, and the Government,
which has characterized the history of the Price-Anderson Act,
should assure that the full benefits of this legislation are made
available to the public as soon as possible.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1 (a) (1) redesignates certain subsections of section 11
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (hereinafter re-
ferred to as the "act") to permit insertion of new definitions in
alphabetical order.
Section 1 (a) (2) amends the act by adding new subsection "j."
to section 11 of the act which defines the term "extraordinary nu-
clear occurrence" to mean—
any event causing a discharge or dispersal of source, special
nuclear, or byproduct material from its intended place of con-
finement in amounts offsite, or causing radiation levels offsite,
which the Commission determines to be substantial, and which
the Commission determines has resulted or will probably re-
sult in substantial damages to persons offsite or property
offsite.
The Commission is directed to establish criteria in writing setting
forth the basis upon which the Commission shall determine whether
or not an extraordinary nuclear occurrence has taken place in a par-
ticular case. Subsection 11 j. also defines the term "offsite" to
mean away from "the location" or "the contract location" as de-
fined in the applicable Commission indemnity agreement entered
into pursuant to section 170.
Various elements must be present before the definition is met.
There must have been an identifiable event causing (a) a discharge
or dispersal of nuclear material from its intended place of con-
finement, that is, the last confining barrier between the material
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE' HISTORY 775
and the public, in substantial amounts offsite; or (b) substantial
radiation levels offsite.
The Commission will determine what is "substantial" in a par-
ticular case in accordance with the criteria, referred to above,
which have been developed in advance of the event. It is antic-
ipated that the criteria may establish a quantitative test or tests
applicable to different types of situations.
In addition, the Commission must determine whether the event
has resulted or will probably result in "substantial damages" to
persons or property offsite. The amount of damages likely to fol-
low from a particular event will be an estimate. The Commission
will determine the substantiality of damages to persons or prop-
erty offsite in a particular case in accordance with the criteria, re-
ferred to above, which have been developed in advance of the
event. A reasonable rule of thumb which it is expected the Com-
mission would follow is that if damages are estimated to exceed $5
million they would be considered substantial. The Commission
could, however, determine
[p. 23]
that damages below this figure are substantial, taking into con-
sideration all relevant factors.
In establishing criteria, the Commission shall provide an oppor-
tunity to the various segments of the nuclear industry and other
interested persons to comment, in accordance with its usual public
rulemaking procedures, on criteria which the Commission would
propose, prior to final issuance.
Once the criteria have been finally issued, the determination
made thereunder by the Commission that there has, or there has
not, been an extraordinary nuclear occurrence, will be final and
conclusive, and no other official and no court shall have power or
jurisdiction to review such determination. This is to assure that
the Commission's determination can be neither appealed nor at-
tacked collaterally.
Section 1 (a) (J) amends the act by adding new subsection m. to
section 11 of the act defining the term "indemnitor" to mean (1)
any insurer with respect to his obligations under a policy of in-
surance furnished as proof of financial protection, (2) any li-
censee, contractor, or other person who is obligated under any
other form of financial protection, with respect to such obligation,
and (3) the Commission with respect to any obligation undertaken
by it in an indemnity agreement entered into pursuant to section
170. The term thus encompasses the nuclear liability insurance
pools (NELIA and MAELU), self-insurers, and the Commission,
to the extent of their obligations. The term is later used in the
-------
776 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
amendments, (1) to indicate those persons who may enter into
agreements with the Commission for prompt handling, investiga-
tion, and settlement of claims for public liability (subsec. 170 m.),
(2) to identify those as to whom the special waivers are effective
only with respect to obligations set forth in insurance policies or
contracts furnished as proof of financial protection and in in-
demnity agreements (subsec. 170 n. (1)), and (3) to identify
those who, together with other interested persons, may petition the
court for a determination that public liability for a single nuclear
incident may exceed the limit of liability under subsection 170 e.,
and who are mentioned in other respects in the special provisions
of the bill dealing with allocation of the insurance and indemnity
fund (subsec. 170 o.).
Section 1 (a) (4) amends subsection 11 q. of the act (which was
subsec. 11 o. prior to redesignation as provided in sec. l(a) (1) of
this amendment) to make it clear that the term "occurrence" as
used in the definition of "nuclear incident" includes an "extraor-
dinary nuclear occurrence." Thus, an "extraordinary nuclear
occurrence," which causes the effects specified in subsection 11 q.,
is a "nuclear incident." Because subsections 170 c. and 170 d.
provide that the Commission shall agree to indemnify for public
liability arising from "nuclear incidents," this addition to the def-
inition of "nuclear incident" makes clear that indemnity may be
paid for liability arising out of extraordinary nuclear occurrences
which, in fact, do cause the kind of injury or damage referred to in
the definition of "nuclear incident."
Section 1 (b) amends section 109 of the act by redesignating
references therein to section 11 of the act consistent with the re-
designation of certain subsections of section 11 as provided in sec-
tion l(a) (1) of this bill.
Section 2 deletes the last sentence of subsection 170 e. of the act.
Under subsection 170 e. of the present act, provision is made for
the unlikely event that damages may exceed the total fund avail-
able from
[p. 24]
financial protection and Price-Anderson indemnity. The U.S.
district court having venue in bankruptcy matters over the loca-
tion of the incident is authorized, in effect, to control the funds,
limit liability, and apportion the payments. Since new subsection
170 o. continues this mechanism, but without reference to the dis-
trict court having venue in bankruptcy and with expanded au-
thority with respect to plans of distribution, the deleted language
is no longer necessary.
Section 3 amends section 170 of the act by adding new subsec-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 777
tions m., n., and o.
New subsection 170 m. authorizes the Commission to enter into
agreements with indemnitors, as defined in new subsection 11 m.
of the act, to establish coordinated procedures for the prompt
handling, investigation, and settlement of claims for public
liability.
New subsection 170 m. authorizes the Commission and other
indemnitors to make payments to, or for the aid of, claimants for
the purpose of providing immediate assistance following a nuclear
incident. These payments may be made without securing releases,
and they shall not constitute an admission of the liability of any
person indemnified or of any indemnitor. Such payments shall
operate as a satisfaction to the extent thereof of any final settle-
ment or judgment.
Where Commission funds are to be used in making emergency
payments, any funds appropriated to the Commission are available
for such payments.
New subsection 170 n. (1) authorizes the Commission to estab-
lish a system of waivers of defenses with respect to extraordinary
nuclear occurrences to which insurance policies or contracts fur-
nished as proof of financial protection or indemnity agreements
apply. The system will not be coextensive with all Price-Anderson
coverage. The waivers will be applicable only to extraordinary
nuclear occurrences which—
(a) Arise out of or result from or occur in the course of
the construction, possession, or operation of a production or
utilization facility; or
(b) Arise out of or result from or occur in the course of
transportation of source, byproduct, or special nuclear ma-
terial to or from such a facility; or
(c) During the course of the contract activity, arise out of
or result from the possession, operation, or use by a Commis-
sion contractor or subcontractor of a device utilizing special
nuclear or byproduct material.
Category (a) is coextensive with nuclear liability insurance pol-
icies required as proof of financial protection and Price-Anderson
indemnity coverage presently extended to utilization and produc-
tion facilities.
Category (b) is also coextensive with nuclear liability insurance
policies furnished as proof of financial protection and Price-Ander-
son indemnity agreements.
Category (c) contains the limitation "during the course of the
contract activity" in order to exclude from the new system of
waivers occurrences which involve liability of an AEC contractor
-------
778 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
or subcontractor for damage to others based upon a defective item
produced under the contract where the occurrence transpires sub-
sequent to delivery of the product by the contractor. The system
would apply, however, if the accident occurred while the device
was still in the custody of the AEC contractor or subcontractor.
Thus, this limita-
[p. 25]
tion is intended to have only temporal application; it is not intended
to create technical defenses but rather to impose a time limit based
upon when the risk of liability to the contractor or subcontractor
ceases.
The reference in category (c) to a "device" utilizing special nu-
clear or byproduct material includes within its scope SNAP aux-
iliary power and propulsion devices, Plowshare devices, and atomic
weapons to the extent they are possessed, operated, or used in the
course of the contract activity.
The system of waivers is effectuated by authorizing the Com-
mission to incorporate provisions in existing and new indemnity
agreements with licensees and contractors and to require provisions
to be incorporated in existing and new policies or contracts fur-
nished as proof of financial protection which waive certain de-
fenses and issues. The Commission is thus authorized to require
waivers of defense and issues as to negligence ("fault") in policies
or contracts furnished as proof of financial protection, and in
Price-Anderson indemnity agreements. Such waivers will remove
the possibility that a claim will be defeated on technical, legal
grounds relating to issues of negligence ("fault"). Thus, the
claimant, or plaintiff, on a showing that the AEC has determined
pursuant to subsection 170 j. that there has been an "extraor-
dinary nuclear occurrence," and the defendant's reasonable rela-
tionship thereto, will be able to proceed directly to his proof that
the occurrence caused his personal injury or property damage
arising out of or resulting from the radioactive, toxic, explosive, or
other hazardous properties of the nuclear material, the nature of
the injuries or damage, and the amount of his damages. With
respect to these remaining issues or defenses, the defendant can
still invoke the traditional rules of proof and present evidence on
his own behalf. Courts must still make determinations on these
issues.
The waivers provided for under subsection 170 n. (1) not only
waive any issue or defense as to the fault of persons indemnified,
but also waive any issue or defense as to the conduct of the claim-
ant. The latter waiver eliminates from any trial the issues of con-
tributory negligence or assumption of risk on the part of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 779
claimant. "Conduct of the claimant" should be interpreted
broadly to include conduct of persons through whom the claimant
derives his cause of action, as in the case, for example, of a rep-
resentative suit.
To the extent that a court need not concern itself with proof of
fault of persons indemnified, or the conduct of the claimant, plain-
tiffs will not be subject to varying rules of law in proving the
public liability of defendants. By requiring potential defendants
to agree to waive defenses the defendants' rights are restricted;
concomitantly, to this extent, the rights of plaintiffs are enlarged.
Just as the rights of persons who are injured are established by
State law, the rights of defendants against whom liability is as-
serted are fixed by State law. What this subsection does is to au-
thorize the AEG to require that defendants covered by financial
protection and indemnity give up some of the rights they might
otherwise assert.
In authorizing the Commission to require waivers as to the fault
of persons indemnified, the intent is that waivers as to other de-
fenses such as act of God, intervening third party, and proximate
cause to the extent it is an element in establishing fault or neg-
ligence may also be required by the Commission. However, the
waivers would save a defense pertaining to the issue of causal
relationship; i.e., the damages
[p. 26]
are not reasonably related to the occurrence. It is expected the
Commission would also give consideration to permitting a defense
that the injury or damage would not have resulted but for the
abnormally sensitive character of the claimant's activity.
The incorporation of waivers of charitable or governmental im-
munity is also authorized. Provision for payment of indemnity
irrespective of immunity is already found in subsection 170 k. of
the act, which is an outgrowth of subsection 170 a., which provides
in pertinent part:
The Commission may require, as a further condition of is-
suing a license, that an applicant waive any immunity from
public liability conferred by Federal or State law.
It is understood that the waivers required, under new subsection
170 n. (1), of other Federal agencies which are licensees or con-
tractors of the Commission would be applicable in suits against
the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Thus, under
the provision that the Commission has authority to require waivers
of charitable or governmental immunity, the Commission also has
-------
780 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
authority to require other Federal agencies which are licensees or
contractors to waive the "discretionary function" defense per-
mitted by the Federal Tort Claims Act. The Commission would
also have the authority to require the waiver of the defense of
the statute of limitations applicable to a suit under the Federal
Tort Claims Act.
Waivers of issues or defenses based on any statute of limitations
may be required by the Commission if suit is instituted within 3
years from the date on which the claimant first knew, or reasonably
could have known, of his injury or damage and the cause thereof,
but in no event more than 10 years after the date of the nuclear in-
cident. This provision serves to avoid the application of more
restrictive State statutes of limitations which are not appropriate
to claims for radiation injury.
All of the waivers incorporated in indemnity agreements or pol-
icies and contracts furnished as proof of financial protection shall
be effective regardless of whether the issue or defense waived may
otherwise be deemed jurisdictional or relating to an element in the
cause of action. Thus, for example, if a State's decisional or stat-
utory law provides that a necessary element in stating a cause of
action in tort is that the State statute of limitations must not yet
have run, a suit to which Price-Anderson waivers apply may not be
dismissed for such failure to state a cause of action. Another
example might be under the Federal Tort Claims Act concerning1
which it has been said that an allegation of negligence is necessary
for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction upon the court. A suit
to which Price-Anderson waivers apply may not, on that ground,
be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
New subsection 170 n. (1) contains a provision that when so in-
corporated in indemnity agreements with licensees and contractors
and in policies or contracts furnished as proof of financial pro-
tection, such waivers shall be judicially enforceable in accordance
with their terms by the claimant against the person indemnified.
This serves to assure that the claimant will not be treated merely
as an incidental beneficiary by the court, but will be entitled
to have the waivers enforced as to himself as a third-party
beneficiary.
There are a number of defenses which will not be waived. It is
clear that the legitimate interests of all concerned are served by
allow-
[P- 27]
ing persons indemnified to retain the right to defend against
injury or damage to a claimant or a claimant's property which is
either (1) intentionally sustained by the claimant, or (2) is a re-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 781
suit of a nuclear incident intentionally and wrong-fully caused by
the claimant. A defense based upon a failure to take reasonable
steps to mitigate damages is also retained. This, of course, does
not mean that a failure to mitigate constitutes a complete defense
to an entire claim; it does entitle the defendant to an offset for the
amount found by a court to be appropriate in mitigation. Other
than the specific exceptions of mitigation and claimant's wrongful
conduct and the exceptions from the definition of public liability in
subsection 11 w. of the act, as redesignated by this bill, the waivers
may essentially waive all defenses. As noted above, the issues
relating to the amount of damages and whether the occurrence led
to the damages could still be litigated.
The last sentence of proposed subsection 170 n. (1) assures that,
as to indemnitors, the waivers will be effective only with respect to
the obligations set forth in the policies or contracts furnished as
proof of financial protection and in the indemnity agreements, and
further assures that the waivers will have no effect on any claim or
portion thereof which is not within the protection afforded under
the terms of such policies, contracts, and indemnity agreements,
and the limit of liability provisions of subsection 170 e.
New subsection 170 n. (2) establishes the applicable venue and
jurisdiction for public liability actions arising out of or resulting
from an "extraordinary nuclear occurrence."
Under this subsection any action involving "public liability" (as
defined in subsec. 11 w. of the act, as redesignated by this bill)
arising out of or resulting from an extraordinary nuclear occur-
rence may be filed in the Federal courts without regard to the
amount in controversy or diversity of citizenship. The venue is to
be fixed in the U.S. district court in the district where the extraor-
dinary nuclear occurrence takes place (that is, the district in
which the first release of nuclear material or radioactivity occurs),
and for an extraordinary nuclear occurrence taking place outside
of the United States, in the District Court for the District of
Columbia.
An action may be instituted in a State court or another U.S.
district court, and, indeed, may be permitted to continue in such
court if the circumstances of the occurrence and the action do not
appear to the defendant or the Commission to necessitate removal.
However, the absolute right of removal or transfer by the defend-
ant or the Commission to the U.S. district court having venue
under subsection 170 n. (2) would be assured. The last sentence
of subsection 170 n. (2), referring to the effectiveness of process
of the court throughout the United States, refers to all relevant
types of process, such as that for instituting an action and that for
-------
782 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
requiring attendance of witnesses.
New subsection 170 o. provides certain specific authority for the
U.S. district court in the district where a nuclear incident occurs
(that is, the district in which the first release of nuclear material
or radioactivity occurs), or the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia in case of a nuclear incident occurring outside the
United States, in place of the provision in the last sentence of the
present subsection 170 e. which provides inter alia for distribution
of funds in a
[p. 28]
situation where the total claims from a single nuclear incident
will probably exceed the limit of liability. By the new
section, the appropriate court is given discretion to adopt such
plan as it deems equitable; and the court is given guidance with
respect to some factors which are essential to its consideration of
a plan, such as an allocation of appropriate amounts for personal
injury claims, property damage claims, and possible latent injury
claims which may not be discovered until a later time.
Under this subsection, whenever the court, upon the petition of
any indemnitor or other interested person, determines that public
liability for a single nuclear incident may exceed the limit of li-
ability under subsection 170 e., the following provisions are
applicable:
1. Total payment as a result of the nuclear incident shall
not exceed 15 percent of the limit of liability without the prior
approval of the court. The limitation of 15 percent is ap-
plicable to any nuclear incident when the court determines
that the limit of liability may be exceeded. Not only the emer-
gency assistance payments permitted under proposed new
subsection 170 m. but also any settlements are to be included
within the 15 percent limitation. There would be no change
in the Commission's present authority to settle any claims to
which indemnity applies;
2. The court shall not authorize payments in excess of the
15 percent unless it determines that the payments are or will
be in accordance with a plan of distribution approved by the
court or that such payments are not likely to prejudice the
subsequent adoption and implementation by the court of such
a plan; and,
3. The Commission shall, and any other indemnitor or other
interested person may, submit to the court a plan for the dis-
position of pending claims and for the distribution of remain-
ing funds available. The court shall have all power necessary
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 783
to approve, disapprove, or modify plans proposed, or to adopt
another plan, and to determine the proportionate share of
funds available for each claimant. Additional authority is
provided to the court to issue orders of types described, in
implementation of its mandate. Orders of the court imple-
menting and enforcing the provisions of this section shall be
effective throughout the United States.
The first sentence of new subsection 170 o. allows a petition by
any indemnitor or "other interested person." This latter des-
ignation is intended to include not only "persons indemnified," as
defined in the act, but also any person who claims injury or dam-
age as a result of an extraordinary nuclear occurrence. It appears
appropriate that a claimant should have standing to petition the
court for a determination that the limit of liability may be ex-
ceeded, since his interests may be directly affected. It is also noted
that under subsection 170 o. (3) "other interested persons" may
submit a plan of distribution to the court upon a determination by
the court that the limit of liability may be exceeded.
[P. 29]
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In accordance with subsection (4) of Rule XXIX of the Stand-
ing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law recommended by
the bill accompanying this report are shown as follows (deleted
matter is shown in black brackets and new matter is printed in
italic):
PUBLIC LAW 83-703, AS AMENDED
(Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as Amended)
SEC. 11. DEFINITIONS.—
^ & :]: % # % ','
j. The term "extraordinary nuclear occurrence" means any
event causing a discharge or dispersal of source, special nuclear, or
byproduct material from its intended place of confinement in
amounts off site, or causing radiation levels of/site, u-hich the Com-
mission determines to be substantial, and vhich the Commission
determines has resulted or u-ill probably result in substantial dam-
ages to pei'sons off site or property off site. Any determination by
the Commission that such an event has, or has not, occurred shall
be final and conclusive, and n<> other official or any court shall have
ponder or jurisdiction to revietv any such determination. The Com-
mission shall establisli criteria in writing setting fo/th the basis
-------
784 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
upon which such determination shall be made. As used m this
subsection, "offsite" means aivay from "the location" or "the con-
tract location" as defined in the applicable Commission indemnity
agreement, entered into pursuant to section 170.
[j.]fc. * * *
[k.H * * *
m. The term "indemnitor" means (1) any insurer with respect
to his obligations under a policy of insurance furnished as proof of
financial -protection; (2) any licensee, contractor or other person
who is obligated under any other form of financial protection, with
respect to such obligations; and (3) the Commission ivith respect
to any obligation undertaken by it in an indemnity agreement en-
tered into pursuant to section 170.
[l.]n. * * *
[m.]o. * * *
[n.]p. * * *
[o.] q. The term "nuclear incident" means any occurrence, in-
cluding an extraordinary nuclear occurrence, within the United
States causing, within or outside the United States, bodily injury,
sickness, disease, or death, or loss of or damage to property, or
loss of use of property, arising out of or resulting from the radio-
active, toxic, explosive, or other hazardous properties of source,
special nuclear, or byproduct material: Provided, however, That
as the term is used in subsection 170 1., it shall include any such
occurrence outside of the United States: And provided further,
That as the term is used in section 170 d., it shall include any such
occurrence outside the United States if such occurrence involves a
facility or device owned by, and used by or under contract with,
the United States.
[p.]r. * * *
[q.]s. * * *
[r.]t. * * *
[S.]M. * * *
[t.]v. * * *
IP- 30]
[u.]w. * * *
[v.]x. * * *
[W.]7/. * * *
[x.] z. * * *
[y.]«,«,. * * *
[z.]bb. * * *
[aa.] cc. * * *
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 785
SEC. 109. COMPONENT PARTS OF FACILITIES.—With respect to
those utilization and production facilities which are so determined
by the Commission pursuant to subsection 11 [t.] v. (2) or 11 [aa.]
cc. (2) the Commission may (a) issue general licenses for activ-
ities required to be licensed under section 101, if the Commission
determines in writing that such general licensing will not consti-
tute an unreasonable risk to the common defense and security, and
(b) issue licenses for the export of such facilities, if the Commis-
sion determines in writing that each export will not constitute an
unreasonable risk to the common defense and security.
^i :Ł $i sjs :J; :'f $:
SEC. 170. INDEMNIFICATION AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.—
# # * ;;= :;: =1; ,-f:
e. The aggregate liability for a single nuclear incident of per-
sons indemnified, including the reasonable costs of investigating
and settling claims and defending suits for damage, shall not ex-
ceed the sum of $500,000,000 together with the amount of financial
protection required of the licensee or contractor: Provided, how-
ever, That such aggregate liability shall in no event exceed the
sum of $560,000,000: Provided further, That with respect to any
nuclear incident occurring outside of the United States to which
an agreement of indemnification entered into under the provisions
of subsection 170 d. is applicable, such aggregate liability shall not
exceed the amount of $100,000,000 together with the amount of
financial protection required of the contractor. [The Commission
or any person indemnified may apply to the appropriate district
court of the United States having venue in bankruptcy matters
over the location of the nuclear incident, except that in the case of
nuclear incidents occurring outside the United States, the Com-
mission or any person indemnified may apply to the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia, and upon a showing
that the public liability from a single nuclear incident will prob-
ably exceed the limit of liability imposed by this section, shall be
entitled to such orders as may be appropriate for enforcement of
the provisions of this section, including an order limiting the li-
ability of the persons indemnified, orders staying the payment of
claims and the execution of court judgments, orders apportioning
the payments to be made to claimants, orders permitting partial
payments to be made before final determination of the total claims
and an order setting aside a part of the funds available for pos-
sible latent injuries not discovered until a later time.]
* :!: ;;-. :;; * * #
m. The Commission is authorized to enter into agreements with
-------
786 LEGAL COMPILATION—EADIATION
other indemnitors to establish coordinated procedures for the
prompt handling, investigation, and settlement of claims for pub-
lic liability. The Commission and other indemnitors may make
payments to, or for the aid of,
[p. 31]
claimants for the purpose of providing immediate assistance fol-
lowing a nuclear incident. Any funds appropriated to the Com-
mission shall be available for such payments. Such payments may
be made without securing releases, shall not constitute an admis-
sion of the liability of any person indemnified or of any indemnitor,
and shall operate as a satisfaction to the extent thereof of any final
settlement or judgment.
n. (1) With respect to any extraordinary nuclear occurrence to
which an insurance policy or contract furnished as proof of fi-
nancial protection or an indemnity agreement applies and which—
(«) arises out of or results from or occurs in the course of
the construction, possession, or operation of a production or
utilization facility, or
(b) arises out of or results from or occurs in the course of
transportation of source material, byproduct material, or spe-
cial nuclear material to or from a production or utilization
facility, or
(c) during the course of the contract activity arises out of
or results from the possession, operation, or use by a Com-
mission contiuctor or subcontractor of a device utilizing spe-
cial nuclear material or byproduct material,
the Commission may incorporate provisions in indemnity agree-
ments with licensees and contractors under this section, and may
require provisions to be incorporated in insurance policies or con-
tracts furnished as proof of financial protection, which waive (i)
any issue or defense as to conduct of the claimant or fault of per-
sons indemnified, (ii) any issue or defense as to charitable or
governmental immunity, and (Hi) any issue or defense based on
any statute of limitations if suit is instituted within three years
from the date on which the claimant first knew, or reasonably
could have known, of his injury or damage and the cause thereof,
but in no event more than ten years after the date of the nuclear
incident. The waiver of any such issue or defense shall be effective
regardless of whether such issue or defense may otherwise be
deemed jurisdictional or relating to an element in the cause of
action. When so incorporated, such waivers shall be judicially en-
forceable in accordance icith their terms by the. claimant against
the person indemnified. Such waivers shall not preclude a de-
fense based upon a failure to take reasonable steps to mitigate
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 787
damages, nor shall such waivers apply to injury or damage to a
claimant or to a claimant's property which is intentionally sus-
tained by the claimant or which results from a nuclear incident
intentionally and wrongfully caused by the claimant. The waivers
authorized in this subsection shall, as to indemnitors, be effective
only with respect to those obligations set forth in the insurance pol-
icies or the contracts furnished as proof of financial protection and
in the indemnity agreements. Such waivers shall not apply to, or
prejudice the prosecution or defense of, any claim or portion of
claim which is not within the protection afforded under (/) the
terms of insurance policies or contracts furnished as proof of fi-
nancial protection, or indemnity agreements, and (ii) the limit of
liability provisions of subsection 170 e.
(2) With respect to any public liability action arising out of or
resulting from an extraordinary nuclear occurrence, the United
States district court in the district where the extraordinary nuclear
occurrence takes place, or in the case of an extraordinary nuclear
occurrence taking place outside the United States, the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia, shall have orig-
inal jurisdiction without regard to the citizenship of any party or
the amount in controversy. Upon motion of the defendant or of
the Commission, any such action pending in any
[p. 32]
state court or United States district court shall be removed: or trans-
ferred to the United States district couit having venue under this
subsection. Process of such disti ict court shall be effective through-
out the United States.
o. Whenever the United States district court in the district
where a nuclear incident occurs, or the. United States District
Court for the District of Columbia in case of a nuclear incident oc-
curring outside the United States, determines upon the petition of
any indemnitoi or other interested person that public liability from
a single nuclear incident may exceed the limit of liability under
subsection 170 e.:
(/) Total payments made by or for all indemnitors as a
result of such nuclear incident shall not exceed 15 per cent of
such limit of liability without the prior approval of such
court;
(2} The court shall not authorize payments in excess of 15
per cent of such limit of liability unless the court determines
that such payments are or u'ill be in accordance with a plan
of distribution which has been approved by the court or such
payments are not likely to prejudice the subsequent adoption
and implementation by the court of a plan of distribution pur-
-------
788 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
suant to subparagraph (3) of this subsection (o); and
(3) The Commission shall, and any other indemnitor or
other interested person may, submit to such district court a
disposition of pending claims and for the distribution of
remaining funds available. Such a plan shall include an
allocation of appropriate amounts for personal injury
claims, property damage claims, and possible kitent in-
jury claims which may not be discovered until a later time.
Such court shall have all power necessary to approve, disap-
prove, or modify plans proposed, or to adopt another plan; and
to determine the proportionate share of funds available for
each claimant. The Commission, any other indemnitor, and
any person indemnified shall be entitled to such orders as may
be appropriate to implement and enforce the provisions of this
section, including orders limiting the liability of the persons
indemnified, orders approving or modifying the plan, orders
staying the payment of claims and the execution of court
judgments, orders apportioning the payments to be made to
claimants, and orders permitting partial payments to be made
before final determination of the total claims. The orders of
such court shall be effective throughout the United States.
[p. 33]
l.lv(2) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
H.R. REP. No. 2043, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966)
AMENDMENTS TO THE PRICE-ANDERSON INDEMNITY
PROVISIONS OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS
AMENDED, PERTAINING TO WAIVER OF DEFENSES
SEPTEMBER 14, 1966.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House and
ordered to be printed
Mr. HOLIFIELD, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 17685]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered H.R.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
789
17685 to amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, re-
ports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.
[P. 1]
l.lv(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 112 (1966)
l.lv(3)(a) Sept. 22: Passed Senate, pp. 23633-23634
AMENDMENT OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY
ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calen-
dar No. 1571, S. 3830.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro
tempore. The bill will be stated by
title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill
(S. 3830) to amend the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro
tempore. Is there objection to the
present consideration of the bill?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the bill.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I
rise in support of enactment of S. 3830,
a bill to amend the Price-Anderson nu-
clear indemnity provisions of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
The Price-Anderson nuclear indem-
nity legislation was enacted in 1957
for two principal purposes. First, to
protect the public by assuring the
availability of funds for the payment
of claims arising in the extremely un-
likely event of a catastrophic nuclear
incident. Second, to remove a deter-
rent to private industrial participation
in the atomic energy program which
flowed from the threat of tremendous
potential liability claims. The act ac-
cordingly affords protection to the
public and to AEC's licensees and con-
tractors from the risks associated with
atomic energy by providing for a pro-
gram of private insurance and govern-
mental indemnity amounting to a
maximum of $500 million to cover dam-
ages that conceivably could arise from
a nuclear incident.
Last year the Joint Committee rec-
ommended, and there was enacted,
legislation extending the Price-Ander-
son Act for 10 years—to 1977. During
our hearings on the extension legisla-
tion, our committee identified a number
of potentially serious problems which
required further study. These in-
cluded the difficulty that might face a
claimant if he were unable to prove
someone's negligence was the cause of
a nuclear incident. In addition, con-
cern was expressed that the statutes
of limitations of many States are in-
adequate to provide for delayed mani-
festation of radiation injury.
Our committee has continued to
study these problems, in consultation
with representatives of the private in-
surance industry, the nuclear industry,
and the AEC. As a result of the co-
operative efforts of all concerned a bill
was drafted which attempted to rem-
edy the deficiencies in the existing
legislation.
In July of this year our committee
held 3 days of hearings on the proposed
bill, and we believe that we have now
reported out a measure which will sub-
stantially improve the protection to the
public afforded by the Price-Anderson
legislation without in any way operat-
ing to the detriment of the nuclear
industry. Moreover, it is important
to note that S. 3830—while providing
-------
790
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
for the elimination of certain serious
legal obstacles which might face claim-
ants in the event of a substantial nu-
clear incident—does not establish a
new body of Federal tort law. Instead,
this bill follows the approach of the
original Price-Anderson Act; that is,
making a minimum interference with
the laws of the several States insofar
as legal liability for nuclear incidents
is concerned. Our committee continues
to endorse this general approach.
Mr. President, a detailed analysis of
S. 3830 is contained in our committee's
report which is before you. Our report
discusses the provisions of this bill in
depth and explains the policy bases of
our committee's recommendation.
I will summarize the major provi-
sions of S. 3830 very briefly as follows:
First. The bill would authorize the
AEG to establish coordinated proce-
dures with the nuclear liability insur-
ance pools for the prompt settlement
of claims arising out of a nuclear
incident.
Second. The bill would authorize
the AEC to incorporate provisions in
its indemnity agreements with AEC's
licensees and contractors, and to re-
quire incorporation of provisions in
nuclear liability insurance policies and
contracts which are furnished as proof
of financial protection by AEC's li-
censees and contractors, which waive
any issue or defense as to conduct of
the claimant or fault of defendants.
The primary end result of these waiv-
ers would be first to eliminate any re-
quirement that a claimant prove that
someone was negligent in order to re-
cover for his damages from a serious
nuclear incident and, second, any pos-
sible issue as to the claimant's con-
tributory negligence or assumption of
risk. Waivers could also be required
with respect to charitable or govern-
mental immunity of the defendant and
statutes of limitations, subject to cer-
tain conditions.
Third. The waivers would apply
only with respect to an "extraordinary
nuclear occurrence" as defined in the
bill. The Commission would be em-
powered to determine whether an "ex-
traordinary nuclear occurrence" had
taken place in order to make the waiv-
ers effective.
Fourth. The bill would provide that
in the event of an "extraordinary nu-
clear occurrence" the U.S. district
court in the district where such occur-
rence takes place shall have original
jurisdiction of any public liability ac-
tion arising out of the occurrence,
without regard to the citizenship of
any party or the amount in contro-
versy. The bill would also authorize
the removal to such district court of
all public liability actions arising from
the same occurrence which are pending
in other courts.
Fifth. The bill would provide limi-
tations on the amounts that may be
paid from the private insurance-gov-
ernmental indemnity fund established
under the Price-Anderson Act without
prior court approval. In addition, au-
thority would be provided the appro-
priate U.S. district court to approve
plans of distribution of the fund.
The Joint Committee believes this
bill is an important improvement in
the atomic energy legislation. S. 3830
was reported out by the Joint Commit-
tee without dissent, and I urge the
Senate to pass this bill without delay.
Mr. President, I might add that the
bill has the approval of both the in-
surance industry and the nuclear in-
dustry involved.
I understand that the distinguished
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SAL-
TONSTALL] would like to ask me several
questions.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I thank the
Senator from Rhode Island. He and I
have been Governors, and we know
that there are differences in State
laws particularly with relation to
damages, and so forth. We also know
that at times we have tried to get
universal State laws on such matters
as banking, for instance. The reason
I ask these questions is that I have
read part of the report—I will not say
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
791
that I read it all—but it struck me
that there were certain things of which
I should like to make sure, although I
know that they are probably quite
clear in the Senator's mind.
My first question is: It is my under-
standing that this bill provides definite
authority to the AEC to make emer-
gency assistance payments to victims
of a nuclear incident without requiring
a potential claimant to release his right
to sue for further damages, once they
may become known.
Am I correct in this assumption, that
the right of a person to file suit for
additional damages, whether in a State
or Federal court, would not be prej-
udiced by acceptance of such emer-
gency assistance offered soon after an
incident?
Mr. PASTORE. That is correct.
The Senator is absolutely correct.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. My second
question is: Do I understand correctly
that it will not be necessary for the
Commission to make the determination
that the incident was an "extraordi-
nary nuclear occurrence" before such
emergency assistance could be offered?
Mr. PASTORE. For emergency as-
sistance payments, no. The Commis-
sion does not have to make such a
determination in order to make such
payments. I might say to my distin-
guished
[p. 23633]
colleague that if he and I were
Governors once more, we would wel-
come this law. This law is intended
to protect the claimant who, as the re-
sult of the special waivers authorized,
would not be obliged to prove negli-
gence. Instead of writing a new body
of law, what we are actually doing is
permitting the AEC, in its indemnity
agreements, and the insurance com-
panies in their contracts of insurance
with the utilities, or any other person
who runs a reactor in any community
where we might have this extraordi-
nary incident that we have been talk-
ing about, to agree that the claimant
can make his claim for any damage
without proving negligence. He also
would not be restricted by a short stat-
ute of limitations because sometimes,
in a radiation injury, there is no mani-
festation of that injury within the
period of the statute of limitations.
Thus, actually, this is a bill intended
to protect the claimant and, in the
meantime, of course, for the benefit of
the claimant, he can get emergency
payments.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I ask the
Senator, because he has answered my
third question—but I have two or three
more—what special advantages not
now covered by the operation of the act
could result from this authority to
provide emergency assistance?
I think the Senator has answered
that.
Mr. PASTORE. Yes, I have an-
swered that.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. My next
question is: What must the claimant
show or prove to qualify him for emer-
gency assistance?
Mr. PASTORE. That he was in-
jured.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. That he was
injured. I assume that he would have
to get advice
Mr. PASTORE. He would have to
show that. Of course he would.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. He would
have to prove it, in order to qualify
himself for this emergency assistance?
Mr. PASTORE. He would have to
show that the injury was probably the
result of the nuclear incident. That
would have to be shown.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. He would
have to prove that before representa-
tives of the Commission?
Mr. PASTORE. That is right.
(At this point Mr. BASS took the
chair as Presiding Officer.)
Mr. SALTONSTALL. My last ques-
tion is: Would such assistance be in
addition to or included as part of any
final settlement?
Mr. PASTORE. It would be in-
cluded within the final settlement. If
-------
792
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
he was entitled to more, he would get it.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. He would get
what the Commission gave him any-
way, and if he was entitled to more in
the future, he would get that.
Mr. PASTORE. He would get his
maximum damage and they would de-
duct anything that they have already
paid him.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. So that this
is an effort to make it the same all over
the United States.
Mr. PASTORE. That is right.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I thank the
Senator.
Mr. PASTORE. I merely want the
RECORD to show that a claim has never
been filed under a Price-Anderson in-
demnity agreement with an AEC li-
censee. In other words, I do not want
to leave the impression that anyone
should be frightened over this bill. We
recognize that there is a tremendous
responsibility on the part of the Gov-
ernment in the event that we might
have that kind of incident. But I want
to say that we have come a long way
in the development of plants for the
production of electricity through the
use of atomic energy. We have not
had one major incident as yet.
Of course, the Senator from Massa-
chusetts knows that there is a plant
in Rowe, Mass., which is the pride of
the Nation. I went up there and in-
spected it, and I was so pleased with it.
When they tried to build another one
in Connecticut, they hired a bus and
took some people in Connecticut to
Rowe, Mass. They were left there on
their own to knock on doors and ask
people in the neighborhood what they
thought of having an atomic energy
plant in Massachusetts, and the re-
sponse was overwhelmingly in favor
of it.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Mr. Webster
can take a great deal of credit for that;
can he not?
Mr. PASTORE. Absolutely.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. I thank the
Senator.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, be-
fore I ask that the bill be passed, there
is an error in the printing of S. 3830 in
the word "of" appearing between the
word "prosecution" and the word "de-
fense" on line 23 of page 5. It should
read "or" instead of "of."
I ask unanimous consent that the
error be corrected, and I offer an
amendment to the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On
page 5, line 23, after the word "prose-
cution" strike out "of" and insert "or".
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
Without objection, the amendment
is agreed to.
If there be no further amendment to
be offered, the question is on the en-
grossment and third reading of the
bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
for a third reading, was read the third
time, and was passed, as follows:
[p. 23634]
l.lv(3)(b) Sept. 30: Passed House, pp. 24635-24637
The Clerk read the title of the Sen-
ate bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
California [Mr. HOLIFIELD].
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the Senate bill, as
follows:
S. 3830
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-
resentatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled, That (a) section 11 of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
793
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is
amended—
(1) by redesignating subsections j. and k. as
subsections k. and 1., respectively, and by redes-
ignating subsections I. through aa. as subsections
n. through cc., respectively;
(2) by inserting after subsection i. the fol-
lowing new subsection:
"j. The term 'extraordinary nuclear occur-
rence' means any event causing a discharge or
dispersal of source, special nuclear, or byproduct
material from its intended place of confinement
in amounts offsite, or causing radiation levels
offsite, which the Commission determines to be
substantial, and which the Commission deter-
mines has resulted or will probably result in
substantial damages to peisons offsite or prop-
erty offsite. Any determination by the Commis-
sion that such an event has, or has not, occurred
shall be final and conclusive, and no other
official or any court shall have power or jurisdic-
tion to review any such determination. The
Commission shall establish criteiia in writing
setting forth the basis upon which such determi-
nation shall be made. As used in this subsection,
'offsite' means away from 'the location' or 'the
contract location' as defined in the applicable
Commission indemnity agreement, entered into
pursuant to section 170.";
(3) by inserting after the subsection redesig-
nated as subsection 1 by paragraph (1) of this
subsection the following new subsection:
"m. The term 'indemnitor' means (I) any
insurer with respect to his obligations under a
policy of insurance furnished as proof of finan-
cial protection; (2) any licensee, contractor or
other person who is obligated under any other
form of financial protection, with lespect to
such obligations; and (3) the Commission with
respect to any obligation undertaken by it in an
indemnity agreement enteied into pursuant to
section 170."; and
(4) by inserting the phrase ", including an
extraordinary nuclear occurrence," between the
word "occurrence" and the word "within" in
the subsection redesignated as subsection q. by
paragraph (1) of this section.
(b) Section 109 of such Act is amended by
striking out "subsection 11 t. (2) or 11 aa. (2)"
and inserting in lieu thereof ''subsection 11
v.(2) or 11 cc. (2)".
SEC. 2. Subsection 170 e. of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, is amended by deleting
the last sentence.
SEC. 3. Section 170 of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended, is amended by adding at
the end thereof the following new subsections:
"m. The Commission is authorized to enter
into agreements with other indemnitois to estab-
lish coordinated procedures for the prompt han-
dling, investigation, and settlement of claims for
public liability. The Commission and other
indemnitors may make payments to, or for the
aid of, claimants foi the purpose of pioviding
immediate assistance following a nuclear inci-
dent. Any funds appropriated to the Commis-
sion shall be available for such payments. Such
payments may be made without securing re-
leases, shall not constitute an admission of the
liability of any person indemnified of any indem-
nitor, and shall operate as a satisfaction to the
extent thei eof of any final settlement or
judgment.
"n. (1) With respect to any extraordinary nu-
clear occurrence to which an insurance policy or
contract furnished as proof of financial protec-
tion 01 an indemnity agreement applies and
which—
"(a) arises out of or results from or occurs
in the course of the construction, possession, or
operation of a production or utilization facility,
or
"(b) arises out of or results fiom or occurs
in the course of transportation of source mate-
rial, bypioduct material, or special nuclear
material to or from a production or utilization
facility, or
"(c) during the course of the contract activ-
ity i ises out of or results from the possession,
operation, or use by a Commission contractor
or subcontractor of a device utilizing special
nuclear material or byproduct material.
the Commission may incorporate piovisions in
indemnity agreements with licensees and con-
tractors under this section, and may lequire
provisions to be incoipoiated in insurance pol-
icies or contracts furnished as proof of financial
protection, which waive (i) any issue or defense
as to conduct of the claimant or fault of persons
indemnified, (ii) any issue or defense as to
charitable or government immunity, and (iii)
any issue or defense based on any statute of
limitations if suit is instituted within three years
from the date on which the claimant first knew,
or reasonably could have known, of his injury
or damage and the cause thereof, but in no event
more than ten years after the date of the
nuclear incident. The waiver of any such issue
or defense shall be effective regardless of whether
such issue or defense may otherwise by deemed
jurisdictional or i elating to an element in the
cause of action. When so incorporated, such
waivers shall be judicially enforcible in accord-
ance with their terms by the claimant against
the person indemnified. Such waivers shall not
preclude a defense based upon a failure to take
reasonable steps to mitigate damages, nor shall
such waiveis apply to injury or damage to a
claimant or to a claimant's property which is
intentionally sustained by the claimant or which
results from a nuclear incident intentionally and
wrongfully caused by the claimant. The waivers
authorized in this subsection shall, as to indem-
nitors, be effective only with respect to those
obligations set forth in the insuiance policies or
the contracts furnished as proof of financial
protection and in the indemnity agieements.
Such waivers shall not apply to, or prejudice the
piosecution or defense of, any claim or portion
of claim which is not within the piotection af-
forded under (i) the teims of insurance policies
or contracts furnished as pi oof of financial
protection, or indemnity agreements, and (ii)
-------
794
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
the limit of liability provisions of subsection
170 e.
"(2) With respect to any public liability ac-
tion arising out of or resulting from an extraor-
dinary nuclear occurrence, the United States
district court in the district where the extraor-
dinary nuclear occurrence takes place, or in the
case of an extraordinary nuclear occurrence
taking place outside the United States, the
United States District Couit for the District of
Columbia, shall have original jurisdiction with-
out regard to the citizenship of any party or the
amount in controversy. Upon motion of the
defendant or of the Commission, any such action
pending in any State court or United States
district court shall be removed or transferred to
the United States district court having venue
under this subsection. Process of such district
court shall be effective throughout the Unite:!
States.
"o. Whenever the United States district
court in the district where a nuclear incident
occurs, or the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia in case of a nucleai
incident occurring outside the United States,
determines upon the petition of any indemmtor
or other interested person that public liability
from a single nuclear incident may exceed the
limit of liability under subsection 170 e.:
" (1) Total payments made by or for all
indemnitors as a result of such nuclear incident
shall not exceed 15 per centum of such limit of
liability without the prior approval of such
court;
"(2) The court shall not authorize payments
in excess of 15 per centum of such limit of
liability unless the court determines that such
payments are or will be in accordance with a
plan of distribution which has been approved by
the court or such payments are not likely to
prejudice the subsequent adoption and imple-
mentation by the court of a plan of distribution
pursuant to subparagraph (3) of this subsec-
tion (o); and
" (3) The Commission shall, and any other in-
demnitor or other interested person may, submit
to such district court a plan for the disposition
of pending claims and for the distribution of
remaining funds available. Such a plan shall
include an allocation of appropriate amounts
for personal injury claims, pioperty damage
claims, and possible latent injury claims which
may not be discovered until a later time. Such
court shall have all power necessaiy to approve,
disapprove, or modify plans proposed, or to
adopt another plan; and to determine the pro-
portionate share of funds available for each
claimant. The Commission, any other indem-
nitor, and any person indemnified shall be en-
titled to such orders as may be appropriate to
implement and enforce the provisions of this
section, including orders limiting the liability of
the persons indemnified, orders approving or
modifying the plan, orders staying the payment
of claims and the execution of court judgments,
orders apportioning the payments to be made
to claimants, and orders permitting partial pay-
ments to be made before final determination of
the total claims. The orders of such court shall
be effective throughout the United States."
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I
move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Speaker, the bill that is before
the House is to amend the Price-An-
derson Nuclear Indemnity Act. It is
a technical bill. It has been passed
unanimously by the committee for the
purpose of making available on an
emergency basis funds which the
Atomic Energy Commission may have
for the immediate settlement of any
claims that might arise. It removes
certain legal objections which would
ordinarily obtain in proving negligence
on the part of a nuclear reactor
operator.
We have approached this matter in
conference with private insurance com-
panies, with representatives of the
States and with all the people who
might be affected.
This bill removes the necessity for a
new body of Federal tort law which
might interfere with the various State
laws on that particular subject.
It is supported completely by the in-
surance industry. They have agreed
to follow the format of the bill which
is before us in lieu of having a bill pre-
scribing a new Federal tort advanced
in the House.
[p. 24635]
I will be perfectly willing to explain
this in detail if there are any questions
to be asked on the matter.
If not, I yield to the gentleman from
Illinois [Mr. PRICE], the author of the
bill.
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, this bill
is entirely in the public interest. This
legislation itself pertains to third-
party liability and the protection of
the public. The purpose of this par-
ticular bill is to eliminate the necessity
of prolonged and drawn-out litigation
to determine legal liability. This legis-
lation takes care of that matter and
fulfills the fundamental intent of the
act.
It has the support of the private in-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
795
surance industry, the utility industry,
the AEC, and the Joint Committee. In
fact, no one appeared in opposition to
this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I join the distinguished
chairman of the Joint Committee in
urging passage of S. 3830.
When Senator ANDERSON and I in-
troduced the Price-Anderson legisla-
tion over 10 years ago, it was our belief
that the public would receive adequate
financial protection from the very large
private insurance-governmental indem-
nity fund provided for by the act. We
assumed, on the basis of the evidence
presented to the Joint Committee, that
under existing legal principles some-
one would be held liable in the event of
a serious nuclear incident. This would
make the Price-Anderson fund avail-
able for payments of claims, because
the insurance policies and indemnity
agreements cover the liability of all.
We continue to believe these legal
principles would apply. However, in
more recent years, there have been
fears expressed that bona fide claim-
ants would be subjected to protracted
litigation before they could collect from
the fund, assuming they could collect
at all. This is not in accord with the
purpose cf the Price-Anderson legis-
lation. As the Joint Committee report
stated last year:
It is the clear intent of this legislation that if
a member of the public ever is injured by a nu-
clear incident, he will not be subjected to a
series of substantive and proceduial huidles
which would prevent the speedy satisfaction of
a legitimate claim.
I recognize, of course, that the likeli-
hood of a serious nuclear incident is ex-
tremely remote. However, in view of
the substantial participation by the
Government in the nuclear energy pro-
gram—and the special provisions al-
ready contained in the Price-Anderson
Act for the benefit of the public and
the nuclear industry—it appears to a
number of members of the Joint Com-
mittee, including myself, that if an
incident should occur, the public should
be able to rely on the availability of
the insurance and indemnity funds
without having to prove someone was
negligent. However, a claimant should
still have to prove that the incident
caused his injury and what his dam-
ages actually were.
Since last year, there has been an in-
tensive, cooperative effort among rep-
resentatives of the private insurance
industry, the utility industry, the AEC,
and the Joint Committee. I particu-
larly want to commend the construc-
tive role played by the representatives
of industry in attempting to resolve
this problem affecting the public wel-
fare.
Mr. Speaker, I introduced the com-
panion bill to S. 3830 to correct the
possible deficiencies in the existing
Price-Anderson Act which our com-
mittee identified in our hearings. I
believe this bill is a fair and workable
piece of legislation and I urge that the
House pass it today.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr.
Speaker, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support S.
3830. I agree that under the existing
law a claimant would probably not
have to prove that someone was neg-
ligent in order to recover damages re-
sulting from a serious nuclear incident.
Nevertheless, a claimant might still
face some potentially serious legal ob-
stacles in such a case. For this reason,
I support S. 3830, and believe this bill
helps to fulfill the promise to the public
contained in the Price-Anderson Act
that funds will be available to pay for
legitimate claims arising out of atomic
energy activities.
Of course, it is the committee's belief
and fervent hope that there will never
be a need to call upon the huge sums of
money made available through the
Price-Anderson legislation. Dollars
are no substitute for safety in the first
instance. This is why the committee
will continue to insist that the most
rigorous standards are followed in
building and operating nuclear plants.
I should also note that there has never
-------
796
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
been an incident at a licensed nuclear
reactor that caused injury to a mem-
ber of the public.
Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Speaker, I take this time to di-
rect some questions to the author of
the bill, or the members of the commit-
tee who are handling it.
Mr. PRICE, if I understood you cor-
rectly, you said that one of the pur-
poses of the bill was to prevent any
prolonged action to prove liability in
case there was a nuclear explosion or
catastrophe?
Mr. PRICE. That is correct. How-
ever, it does not change the necessity
of proving injury or damage.
Mr. SAYLOR. If my memory serves
me correctly, the proponents of this
legislation, back in 1954, said that one
of the reasons that they were passing
this legislation was to enable the Gov-
ernment to get in real early and to
make sure that the public had an ade-
quate amount of money to protect
them. It seems rather strange that 12
years later we now come along and in
amending the bill say that one of the
purposes of it is to make it easier in
case there is a nuclear occurrence, that
we should be able to have the public
get their money more easily.
Mr. PRICE. It is not simply a mat-
ter of getting the money. The bill is
designed to remove the technical legal
obstacles that might face a claimant
who was injured by an incident. It is
a further concession to the public and
to the injured party, but he must prove
the injury and he must prove his dam-
ages.
I must also say I believe at the time
the original legislation was under con-
sideration we said that we anticipated
no time when we might have to exercise
a provision of this act. I think our
statements at that time have been
proven correct. We have now passed
the 9-year mark and there have been
no nuclear incidents involving a li-
censed facility in which this legisla-
tion had to be invoked.
Mr. SAYLOR. Do not misunder-
stand me, Mr. PRICE. I am delighted
that the AEC and private industry
have had this kind of record. I am
delighted that there has been no occa-
sion to call upon this fund or the insur-
ance fund which is available for the
protection or claims of the public. But
I notice that you now have included the
phrase "extraordinary nuclear occur-
rence." What do you mean by including
in this bill the term "extraordinary
nuclear occurrence"?
Mr. PRICE. This is to make it cer-
tain that it would come into play only
in an unusual situation—a significant
incident, not a minor incident. That
was the purpose.
Mr. SAYLOR. Oh, then, the pur-
pose of the bill might be construed by
the courts to limit liability in case there
is not a catastrophe?
Mr. PRICE. The word "extraordi-
nary" certainly would not place any
limitation on liability.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SAYLOR. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman from California.
Mr. HOSMER. The procedures un-
der this bill for settlement of claims on
account of a nuclear accident come into
play when the accident is of such type
as the AEC determines to be an "ex-
traordinary nuclear occurrence." Be-
fore that point there are still remedies,
the usual ones, and the usual means of
settling a claim. So whether or not
there is an "extraordinary nuclear oc-
currence" merely goes to the manner
and the procedures by which settle-
ments are arrived at. It does not go
to the substance of the rights of any-
one.
Mr. SAYLOR. Does the gentleman
from California mean to tell the House
that if there is a nuclear incident there
is another means of liability against
the Federal Government, rather than
as provided in the Price-Anderson
bill?
Mr. HOSMER. I am saying no such
thing. I say merely that there might
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
797
be a nuclear incident, and perhaps one
person will be slightly injured and $20
worth of damage done to property.
We would not call upon the procedures
of this bill for settling that kind of sit-
uation. We would go about it in the
ordinary manner of bringing a suit
against somebody.
The SPEAKER. The time of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania has ex-
pired.
(On request of Mr. HOSMER, and by
unanimous consent, Mr. SAYLOR was
allowed to proceed for 5 additional
minutes.)
Mr. HOSMER. On the other hand,
there are situations in which there
may be large numbers of people in-
volved, or a large dollar amount of
property damage. I recall the conven-
tional disaster situation at Texas City.
One of the things learned from Texas
City was that when there is that kind
of disaster the claims settlement ma-
chinery must be able to move in, and
move in fast and
[p. 24636]
move in effectively. This bill provides
that in the event of an "extraordinary
nuclear occurrence," not in the event of
an insignificant nuclear occurrence,
injured persons will not have to go
through the legal technicality of prov-
ing negligence. Moreover, there will
be this swift-moving machinery set up
to provide for the type of claims settle-
ment which experience has taught
should be provided and which in fact
the Price-Anderson Act as originally
written did not clearly provide for.
Mr. SAYLOR. I say to the Mem-
bers, and the members of the commit-
tee, I commend them for this type of
legislation they have brought to the
House. I believe it is a step in the light
direction.
I hope that the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy will not stop here.
Those of us who have objected to this
approach of limited liability will some-
day see the time when the Joint Com-
mittee on Atomic Energy will say to
the American public and to the world
that if there is a catastrophe, what-
ever the liability of the Federal Gov-
ernment and the private operators,
whomsoever they may be, they will put
forth all their assets in an effort to
settle these claims, rather than do it
on a limited basis such as included in
the Price-Anderson bill.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Speaker, I fully subscribe to
what our distinguished Chairman has
said about this bill. It would improve
the protection to the public presently
provided by the Price-Anderson Act,
and it would do so in what I consider
to be an ingenious way.
This bill does not superimpose a new
body of Federal law upon a segment of
our traditional State tort laws.
Rather, it accomplishes the beneficial
purposes we have in mind principally
by providing for contractual agreement
by the persons who might be held liable
for a nuclear incident to forgo certain
defenses that might otherwise be avail-
able to them under applicable State or
Federal law. The Atomic Energy
Commission would also waive these de-
fenses in its indemnity agreements.
Through this mechanism the Price-
Anderson Act will remain true to the
principle that has been a cornerstone
of the act since its passage, viz., mini-
mal interference with State law.
There is one other point that I be-
lieve deserves emphasis. Among the
issues that could be waived under this
bill is that of the statute of limitations.
The bill provides that the Commission
may require the waiver of the defense
as to any suit instituted within 3 years
after the victim knows of his injury
and its cause, and in any event within
10 years after the nuclear incident.
As the chairman indicated, there are
a number of States whose statutes of
limitations fail to take into account the
problems of delayed manifestation of
some radiation-caused injuries. In
these States a claimant may not dis-
cover his injury until after the rela-
-------
798
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
tively short period of limitations has
expired, in which case he probably
would be unable to collect for his dam-
ages.
The effect of this bill would be to es-
tablish a more equitable 10-year gross
limitations period for asserting claims
arising from a serious nuclear incident.
At the same time, however, the waiver
leaves undisturbed the laws of those
States which have enacted—or in the
future may enact—longer periods of
limitation. It is my hope that the
States whose statutes of limitations
are inadequate in this respect, will re-
view them and take remedial action.
I believe there is nothing else that
need be added to the statement of our
distinguished chairman, and I join him
in urging that this bill be enacted.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to extend my re-
marks at this point in the RECORD.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I have
long been interested in this type of leg-
islation. I think it is very apropos
and commend the committee for bring-
ing it in at this time. It was only on
the last Consent Calendar that I asked
a similar action on the part of the Fed-
eral Government be passed over with-
out prejudice until such time as the
Judge Advocate General of the depart-
ment of the military services could
come in and visit with me. The
Speaker will recall that I engaged in
colloquy at that time with the gentle-
man from Texas [Mr. PATMAN] con-
cerning a most unusual and a highly
classified military security ordnance
plant in Texas.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that since
that time I have had this conference,
and on the next Consent Calendar this
is very necessary, this very favorable
action on the part of the Federal Gov-
ernment in behalf of the people who
are injured, and because of security
being involved, can go to court and ask
and obtain redress just as might hap-
pen in an unusual atomic nuclear inci-
dent. This approach has been justified
to my complete satisfaction.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I am
most anxious to support this legisla-
tion, and to seek the support of the
other Members of this Chamber today
in favor of these amendments.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be read a
third time, and was read the third
time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
The bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
A similar House bill (H.R. 17685)
was laid on the table.
[p. 24637]
l.lw TO AMEND THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS
AMENDED
December 14, 1967, P.L. 90-190, §§9, 10, 11, 81 Stat. 577
SEC. 9. Subsection 53 f. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended by revising the first sentence thereof to read
as follows: "The Commission is directed to distribute within the
United States sufficient special nuclear material to permit the con-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 799
duct of widespread independent research and development activ-
ities to the maximum extent practicable."
SEC. 10. Subsection 53 c. (1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended, is amended to read as follows:
"c. (1) The Commission may distribute special nuclear material
licensed under this section by sale, lease, lease with option to buy,
[p. 577]
grant, or through the provision of production or enrichment serv-
ices: Provided, hoivever, That unless otherwise authorized by
law, the Commission shall not after December 31, 1970, distribute
special nuclear material except by sale or through the provision of
production or enrichment services to any person who possesses or
operates a utilization facility under a license issued pursuant to
section 103 or 104 b. for use in the course of activities under such
license; nor shall the Commission permit any such person after
June 30, 1973, to continue leasing for use in the course of such
activities special nuclear material previously leased to such person
by the Commission."
SEC. 11. Subsection 161 n. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended by striking out "57 a. (3)" and inserting in
lieu thereof "57 b.".
[p. 578]
-------
800 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
l.lw(l) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
S. REP. No. 743,90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967)
AMENDMENTS TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY
ACT OF 1955, AS AMENDED, THE ATOMIC ENERGY
ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED, AND THE EURATOM
COOPERATION ACT OF 1958, AS AMENDED
NOVEMBER 13, 1967.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. PASTORE, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 2644]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered S.
2644 to amend the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955, as
amended, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the
EURATOM Cooperation Act of 1958, as amended, reports favor-
ably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.
SUMMARY OF THE BILL
Section 1 of the bill would amend section 58 of the Atomic En-
ergy Community Act of 1955, as amended, by revising the system
of priorities applicable to the sale of apartment houses at Los
Alamos, N. Mex. As amended, section 58 would authorize sale of
these dwellings on a priority basis not only to housing cooperatives
but to certain others as well.
Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the bill would amend sections 91, 94, and
118 of the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955 to authorize the
Atomic Energy Commission to continue to make assistance pay-
ments to the Cities of Oak Ridge, Tenn., and Richland, Wash., and
to the Richland School District, and to state more explicitly the
criteria for making such payments. The Commission's present
authority to make such payments to these entities expires in fiscal
year 1969. Under the amendment, any contracts entered into by
the AEG to provide such assistance after June 30, 1979, would
be subject to the availability of appropriations. The amendments
also provide that no appropriations shall be made to carry out the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 801
provisions and purposes of the Community Act unless previously
authorized by legislation enacted by Congress.
[p. 1]
Sections 5 and 6 of the bill would amend subsection 25 a. and
section 28 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to confer on the Di-
rector of the AEC's Division of Military Application the new title
of Assistant General Manager for Military Application. The
amendment also provides that the officer serving in the position
shall have general or flag rank, and that his service shall be re-
imbursed by the Commission for his military pay and allowances.
Section 7 of the bill would amend section 33 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to provide certain additional au-
thority for the AEC to perform research for others pertaining to
the protection of public health and safety.
Section 8 of the bill would amend subsection 41 b. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 to eliminate the requirement for determina-
tions by the President of the quantities of special nuclear material
to be produced under section 41, and the amounts to be available
for distribution by the AEC pursuant to sections 53 and 54 of the
act.
Section 9 of the bill would amend subsection 53 f. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, in light of section 8 of the bill, to eliminate a
reference to the Presidential determinations under subsection 41 b.
of the act that would no longer be applicable.
Section 10 of the bill is a technical amendment to the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954. It would amend paragraph (1) of subsection
53 c. of the act to make it clear that the term "distribute" as used
in that paragraph includes the furnishing of special nuclear mate-
rial through production or enrichment service contracts author-
ized by paragraph A of subsection 161 v. of the act.
Section 11 of the bill is another technical amendment, and would
amend subsection 161 n. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 by
deleting a no longer correct reference therein to subsection 57 a.
(3) and substituting for it a correct reference to subsection 57 b.
Section 12, another perfecting amendment, would amend section
223 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 by deleting the no longer
correct reference therein to subsection 161 p., and substituting
therefor a correct reference to subsection 161 o.
Section 13 would amend section 5 of the EURATOM Coopera-
tion Act of 1958, as amended, to effect three changes. First, this
amendment would authorize the transfer of an additional 145,000
kilograms of contained uranium 235 to the European Atomic En-
ergy Community. Second, this amendment would authorize the
transfer of an additional 1,000 kilograms of plutonium to Euratom.
-------
802 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
Third, this amendment would authorize the AEC to perform ura-
nium enrichment services for Euratom.
Section 14 would add a new heading in the table of contents of
the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955, reflecting the amend-
ment of that act that would be effected by section 1 of the bill.
A more complete explanation of the provisions in this bill is
contained in the sections of this report entitled "Committee Com-
ments" and "Section-by-Section Analysis."
BACKGROUND
On April 26, 1967, Congressman Thomas G. Morris, chairman of
the Joint Committee's Subcommittee on Communities, and Senator
Clinton P. Anderson, a member of the Joint Committee, introduced
[P. 2]
identical bills (H.R. 9199 and S. 1623) to amend the provisions of
the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955, as amended, pertain-
ing to sale of Government-owned apartment houses at Los Alamos,
N. Mex.
On May 11, 1967, the Atomic Energy Commission transmitted to
Congress a proposed 1967 omnibus bill containing four amend-
ments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and one to the EURATOM
Cooperation Act of 1958. This bill was identical to proposed legis-
lation submitted by the AEC on June 30, 1966.1 The AEC's pro-
posed 1967 omnibus bill was introduced on June 5, 1967, by the
chairman of the Joint Committee, Senator John 0. Pastore (by
request) as S. 1901, and on June 7, 1967, by Vice Chairman Chet
Holifield (by request) as H.R. 10627.
Another amendment to the Atomic Energy Community Act of
1955 was submitted by the AEC on July 28, 1967, and introduced
on August 3, 1967, by Senator Pastore (by request) and by Vice
Chairman Holifield (by request), as S. 2220 and H.R. 12087.
These bills would authorize the Atomic Energy Commission to
make assistance payments to the Cities of Oak Ridge, Tenn., and
Richland, Wash., and to the Richland School District, through
June 30, 1979.
On August 14 and 24,1967, the Atomic Energy Commission sub-
mitted two other legislative proposals for consideration in con-
nection with the 1967 omnibus bill. Both proposals involve
amendments to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The first relates
to provision by the Commission of orientation and language train-
1 See "AEC Omnibus Leglislation—1967," hearings before the Subcommittees on Communities
and Legislation of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Aug. 11, IB, and 24, 1967, app. 23.
Although hearings were held on the 1966 bill (H.R. 16211, S. 3617, 89th Cong., 2d sess.) on Aug.
30, 1966, further legislative action was deferred.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 803
ing for members of families of AEC officers and employees as-
signed abroad. The second would clarify and revise the status of
the Director of the AEC's Division of Military Application.
Two other legislative proposals, both relating to the EURATOM
Cooperation Act of 1958, were submitted by the AEC on August 22
and September 28, 1967, for consideration in connection with the
1967 omnibus bill. The first would authorize an increase in the
amount of plutonium which may be transferred to the European
Atomic Energy Community; - the other would amend the Coopera-
tion Act to authorize an increase in the amount of contained
uranium 235 which may be transferred to the Community for
peaceful purposes.
On November 2, 1967, the Department of Defense submitted a
proposed amendment of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 to remove
the locations, numbers, and yields of atomic weapons from the
so-called "formerly Restricted Data" category.
Hearings concerning the 1967 legislative proposals were held by
the Joint Committee's Subcommittees on Communities and Legis-
lation, and the full committee, as summarized in the next section
of this report.
On November 8, 1967 the Subcommittee on Legislation met to
consider the above-described legislative proposals. With respect to
its
[p. 3]
consideration of sale of apartment houses at Los Alamos, and
financial assistance for the communities of Oak Ridge and
Richland, the Subcommittee on Legislation met jointly with the
Subcommittee on Communities. After full discussion, the sub-
committees voted to approve certain of these proposals, with
modifications and additions, and to file clean bills. These were
introduced on November 9, 1967, by Senator Pastore, as S. 2644,
and by Vice Chairman Holifield, as H.R. 13934.
For reasons described more fully in the section of this report
entitled "Committee Comments," the Subcommittee on Legislation
took no further action on the Commission's request of August 14,
1967, for legislative authority to provide appropriate orientation
and language training for dependents of AEC's employees on over-
seas assignment; nor on the Defense Department's November 2,
- This proposal is identical to one submitted by the AEC on Sept. 1, 1966, and introduced on
Sept. 7, 1966, by Congressman Holifield (by request) as H.R. 17557, and by Senator Pastore (by
request) as S. 3808. No further action was taken by the Joint Committee in view of the lateness
in the session when the administration requested the legislation and since the additional plutonium
desired by Euratom apparently was not needed in 1966. See "AEC Omnibus Legislation—1967,"
hearings before the Subcommittees on Communities and Legislation of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy, app. 24.
-------
804 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
1967, proposal pertaining to "formerly Restricted Data."
On November 9, 1967, the full joint committee met and voted
to approve S. 2644 and H.R. 13934, as approved by the Subcom-
mittees on Legislation and Communities. The committee further
voted to adopt this report thereon.
HEARINGS
On August 11,1967, the Subcommittee on Communities convened
in Los Alamos, N. Mex., to hear public testimony on S. 1623 and
H.R. 9199. Herman E. Roser, area manager of the Los Alamos
Area Office of the AEC, and Franklin N. Parks, Associate General
Counsel, testified on behalf of the Commission. Joseph P. Smith,
Director of the Community Disposition Staff, testified on behalf of
the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Also tes-
tifying were the following: Martin Gursky, county of Los Alamos;
Philip Thompson, on behalf of FCH Services, Inc.; Alan Rawcliffe
and Barbara Hoak, residents of Los Alamos, on behalf of Los
Alamos Community Homes, Inc.; and Chuck Caldwell, Fred Se-
large, John Rogers and Lloyd Poquette, residents of the Los Ala-
mos community.
The Subcommittee on Communities met again in Washington,
D.C., on August 24, 1967 (jointly with the Subcommittee on Legis-
lation) to consider S. 2220 and H.R. 12087. Senator Howard H.
Baker presented testimony to the subcommittee. Testifying for the
AEC were Commissioner Wilfrid E. Johnson, John A. Erlewine,
assistant general manager for operations, and other AEC staff.
The subcommittee also heard from John R. Sullivan, mayor, and
Murray W. Fuller, city manager, of the City of Richland, Wash.;
Samuel Clark, superintendent, and Karl Diettrich, senior member
of the school board, Richland School District No. 400; A. K. Bissell,
mayor, Carleton E. McMullin, city manager, and Eugene L. Joyce,
attorney, City of Oak Ridge, Tenn.
The Subcommittee on Legislation held a hearing on August 15,
1967, to consider testimony on the AEC's proposed omnibus bill
for 1967 (S. 1901 and H.R. 10627), and on a proposed amendment
to the bill submitted by the AEC on August 14 concerning pro-
vision by the AEC of orientation and language training to depend-
ents of AEC employees assigned abroad. Although another
amendment to the bill concerning the status of the Director of the
AEC's Division of Mili-
[p. 4]
tary Application had not officially been transmitted to Congress
at the time of the hearing (the amendment was officially submitted
on August 24, 1967), the subcommittee took the opportunity to
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 805
explore this proposal with the AEC at this time. Witnesses who
appeared on behalf of the AEC were: Edward J. Bloch, deputy
general manager; Myron B. Kratzer, assistant general manager
for international activities; and Joseph F. Hennessey, general
counsel.
On August 24, 1967, the Subcommittee on Legislation met again
in open session to hear Commission testimony on S. 2220 and H.R.
12087 (discussed above), and on another proposed amendment to
the omnibus bill for 1967, this one concerning a proposed increase
in the amount of plutonium which may be transferred to the Eu-
ropean Atomic Energy Community under the EURATOM Cooper-
ation Act of 1958. The following AEC witnesses appeared: Dr.
Gerald F. Tape, Commissioner; Howard C. Brown, Jr., assistant
general manager; Joseph F. Hennessey, general counsel; and R.
Glenn Bradley, division of international affairs. This topic was
also considered by the full committee in executive sessions on July
18, 1966, when AEC and State Department representatives tes-
tified, and on October 25, 1967, when witnesses representing the
AEC appeared.
At executive sessions on November 8 and 9, 1967, the Subcom-
mittee on Legislation and the full committee also considered another
proposed amendment to the omnibus bill for 1967, submitted by
the AEC on September 28, 1967. This amendment would modify
the EURATOM Cooperation Act of 1958 to increase by 145,000
kilograms the amount of contained uranium 235 which may be
transferred to the European Atomic Energy Community.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
*******
[p. 5]
Sections 8 and 9. Elimination of Presidential determinations con-
cerning production and distribution of special nuclear material
Subsection 41 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 requires, as
did its precursor, subsection 4(c) (2) of the Atomic Energy Act of
1946, that the President determine at least once each year the
quantities of special nuclear material (or "fissionable material" as
it was known under the 1946 act) to be produced under that sec-
tion. Subsection 41 b. further requires that the President shall
specify in such determination the quantities of special nuclear
material to be available for distribution by the Commission pur-
suant to sections 53 and 54 of the act which relate, respectively, to
the domestic and foreign distribution of such material. Sections
8 and 9 of the bill would eliminate both of these requirements.
[p. 10]
-------
806 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
The first of these requirements was embodied in the 1946 act and
then carried over into the 1954 act to assure, among other things,
that military requirements for special nuclear materials would
receive adequate attention by the Chief Executive. The second
requirement—that the President specify in his determination the
quantities of material to be available for distribution domestically
and abroad—was included in the section in 1954 primarily to per-
mit greater participation in civilian atomic energy matters, par-
ticularly in the development of atomic power, while at the same
time affording assurance that sufficient special nuclear material
(which was still in short supply at that time) would be available
to meet military and other needs of the AEG and the Department
of Defense. Through this device the President was authorized to
provide for military and other governmental requirements but at
the same time to reserve, from existing stocks of special nuclear
material and from future production of such materials approved
by him for the ensuing year, quantities of special nuclear material
to be available for distribution to domestic and foreign persons.
The scarcity of special nuclear material which prevailed 13
years ago, and which prompted the incorporation of these require-
ments into the 1954 act, no longer exists. This change in circum-
stances was acknowledged by Congress in 1964 when it approved
the Private Ownership of Special Nuclear Materials Act (Public
Law 88-489), which not only permits private ownership of special
nuclear material but authorizes the Commission to enter into long-
term contracts to sell special nuclear material to, and to perform
toll enrichment services for, both domestic and foreign persons.
In view of the foregoing, it does not seem necessary to require
the President to continue to make the determinations required by
the last sentence of subsection 41 b. The Joint Committee, there-
fore, recommends the elimination of these requirements from the
Atomic Energy Act, as proposed by the AEC.
It is believed that other sections of the act afford adequate as-
surance that military requirements for special nuclear materials
will continue to receive due attention. Moreover, it should be
noted that even in the absence of a statutory requirement for such
Presidential determinations, the amount of special nuclear mate-
rials to be produced by the Commission will continue to be con-
trolled by Congress and the executive branch through normal
budgetary authorization and appropriation processes. Note-
worthy also is the fact that distribution of such materials abroad
for civilian purposes can be made only pursuant to an agreement
for cooperation which, under the terms of section 123 of the act,
must be approved by the President and submitted to the Joint
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 807
Committee for a period of 30 days while Congress is in session
before becoming effective.7 Thus, sufficient control mechanisms
will remain to insure executive and, in particular, congressional
supervision over the production and distribution of these impor-
tant materials.
[p. li]
It is further believed that one of the purposes served by the
Presidential determination under subsection 41 b.—informing the
atomic energy industry, both domestic and foreign, of the total
amount of enriched uranium available for distribution by the
Commission for peaceful purposes, primarily for use as fuel in
nuclear powerplants—can be better served by a substitute pro-
cedure not requiring legislation. At the Joint Committee's re-
quest, the Commission has previously undertaken to report
annually to the committee "its outstanding and anticipated com-
mitments for providing uranium enriching services, and projected
enrichment capability." s The committee believes that by adding
to this report information concerning sale, lease, and grant of
enriched uranium, data would become available to the committee
and to the public which would provide more meaningful and cur-
rent information as to the enriched uranium supply situation than
was revealed through publication of Presidential determinations
under subsection 41 b.
The committee expects, therefore, that the Commission will sub-
mit to the Joint Committee each year a report indicating, first,
the AEC's outstanding and anticipated commitments for the pro-
vision of enriched uranium and uranium enriching services, and
second, the projected capability, both actual and potential, of the
AEC's existing production facilities to undertake additional com-
mitments to provide such material and services. It is the expec-
tation of the committee that such reports will be made available to
the public.
Sections 10, 11, and 12. Technical amendments of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954
Sections 10, 11, and 12 of the bill embody technical amendments
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
7 In the case of special nuclear mateiiah pioposed to he tiarisf erred to a foreign country "or
militaiy purposes, sec, 123 lequiies that the pioposed agieement foi coopeiation be submitted 1.0
the Congress for leferral to the Joint Committee, wheie the agieement must lie for a peiiod of
60 days while Congicss is in session before becoming effective. Any such agreement shall not
become effective if duiing the 60-day waiting pei lod Congies-^ passes a concuiient iebolution
stating its disfavor of the agreement
s See letter fiom Congiessman Chet Hohfield to Di. Glenn T Seaboig, dated Oct. 18, 1966,
and AEC response thereto dated Dec. 16, 19G6, set foith in the Joint Committee's hearings on
"Uranium Enrichment Seivices Criteiia and Related Matters" (Aug 2, 3, 4, 16, and 17, 1966),
pp. 517-519.
-------
808 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
Section 10 of the bill would amend subsection 53 c. (1) of the
act to make it clear that the authority of the Commission to "dis-
tribute" special nuclear material to domestic licensees under that
subsection includes the authority to distribute such material
through production or enrichment service contracts authorized
under paragraph A of subsection 161 v.
With the passage of the Private Ownership of Special Nuclear
Materials Act in 1964, private ownership of special nuclear mate-
rial became possible in the United States. Concurrently, the AEC
was authorized, after December 31, 1968, to furnish production
and enrichment services under contracts with the AEC's licensees.
However, in amending various sections of the Atomic Energy Act
to reflect these and numerous other changes wrought in the law
by the Private Ownership Act, subsection 53 c. (1) through in-
advertence was not amended specifically to reflect that the furnish-
ing of special nuclear material through such production or
enrichment services constituted a "distribution" under subsection
53 c. (1). Since the term "distribute" as used in section 54 of the
act includes the furnishing of production or enrichment services,
it is desirable to clarify subsection 53 c. (1) in this respect.
[p. 12]
A corresponding change would be made to the proviso in sub-
section 53 c. (1), which directs the Commission not to "distribute"
special nuclear material after December 31, 1970, to certain per-
sons except by sale unless otherwise authorized by law. Again,
this amendment comports with the language of subsection 161 v. of
the Atomic Energy Act, which permits the Commission to distrib-
ute special nuclear materials after December 31, 1968, through the
furnishing of production or enrichment services.
Section 11 of the bill would amend subsection 161 n. of the act
by deleting a reference therein to subsection 57 a. (3) and sub-
stituting for it a correct reference to subsection 57 b. The private
ownership legislation of 1964, referred to above, amended section
57 in such a way that the provisions of the former subsection 57 a.
(3) now appear in subsection 57 b. Subsection 161 n., which iden-
tifies certain Commission functions as nondelegable, should be re-
vised to reflect the change in section 57.
[p. 13]
Section 9 of the bill would amend subsection 53 f. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to delete the reference therein to
the limitations on the distribution of special nuclear materials set
by the President in determinations made pursuant to subsection
41 b. This change in subsection 53 f. is necessitated by the pro-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 809
posed change in subsection 41 b. to be effected by the bill.
Section 10 of the bill, a technical amendment, would amend sub-
section 53 c. (1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to
add the words "or through the provision of production or enrich-
ment services" at two points in the subsection dealing with the
methods by which the Commission can distribute special nuclear
material under that subsection. As amended, the subsection would
make it clear (a) that the furnishing of uranium enrichment serv-
ices by the AEC pursuant to subsection 161 v. of the act is one
method of distribution of special nuclear material under subsection
53 c. (1), and (b) that the furnishing of such services to certain
licensees after December 31, 1970, is not prohibited by that sub-
section.
Section 11 of the bill would amend subsection 161 n. of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to delete an erroneous
reference therein to subsection 57 a. (3) of the act. This technical
amendment would also insert a correct reference to subsection
57 b. of the act in lieu of the deleted reference to subsection 57 a.
(3).
[p. 21]
l.lw(2) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
H.R. REP. No. 911, 90th Cong., 1st Sess. (1967)
AMENDMENTS TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY COMMUNITY
ACT OF 1955, AS AMENDED, THE ATOMIC ENERGY
ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED, AND THE EURATOM
COOPERATION ACT OF 1958, AS AMENDED
NOVEMBER 9, 1967.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. HOLIFIELD, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 13934]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered H.R.
13934 to amend the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955, as
amended, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the
-------
810
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
EUR ATOM Cooperation Act of 1958, as amended, reports favor-
ably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass.
SUMMARY OF THE BILL
Section 1 of the bill would amend section 58 of the Atomic En-
ergy Community Act of 1955, as amended, by revising the system
of priorities applicable to the sale of apartment houses at Los
Alamos, N. Mex. As amended, section 58 would authorize sale of
these dwellings on a priority basis not only to housing cooperatives
but to certain others as well.
Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the bill would amend sections 91, 94, and
118 of the Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955 to authorize the
Atomic Energy Commission to continue to make assistance pay-
ments to the Cities of Oak Ridge, Tenn., and Richland, Wash., and
to the Richland School District, and to state more explicitly the
criteria for making such payments. The Commission's present
authority to make such payments to these entities expires in fiscal
year 1969. Under the amendment, any contracts entered into by
the AEG to provide such assistance after June 30, 1979, would be
subject to the availability of appropriations. The amendments
also provide that no appropriations shall be made to carry out the
provisions and purposes of the Community Act unless previously
authorized by legislation enacted by Congress.
[P- i]
l.lw(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 113 (1967)
l.lw(3) (a) Nov. 15: Passed Senate, p. 32583
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.lw(3)(b) Nov. 30: Passed House, pp. 34398-34399, 34403
Mr. HOLIFIELD.
Mr. Chairman, I also wish to say a
few additional words concerning the
performance by the AEC of research
for others.
The Atomic Energy Commission's
laboratories represent a national asset
of incomparable value. The plants
themselves are unique in their quality
and diversity. They are staffed by out-
standing people, expert in both the
physical and life sciences. The sys-
tems type approach which they have
applied to problems of such magnitude
and complexity as development of nu-
clear energy especially qualifies these
organizations for coping with other
pressing tasks affecting the public
health and safety which must be un-
dertaken today. Section 7 of H.R.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
811
13934 was included in this bill at the
recommendation of the Joint Commit-
tee, to provide additional assurance
that the AEC's excellent facilities will
be available to undertake these tasks.
At the present time, the AEC pos-
sesses authority under section 33 of the
Atomic Energy Act to perform re-
search for others under certain circum-
stances, provided the Commission
deems the activities and studies "ap-
propriate to the development of atomic
energy." In addition, the AEC pos-
sesses a very broad charter under
sections 31 and 32 of the act to per-
form or have performed research and
development pertaining to the atomic
energy program. Further, the Com-
mission may perform work—including
work outside of the atomic energy field
—for other Federal agencies under the
so-called Economy Act. Using these
authorities, the AEC has undertaken
such programs as development of liquid
centrifuges for use in carcinogenesis
studies, as well as some ecological and
environmental pollution studies.
The AEC has also initiated a so-
called "spin-off" program, designed to
help translate into beneficial commer-
cial-industrial use the information and
techniques developed in the atomic en-
ergy program.
Notwithstanding these provisions of
law, there may be legal barriers which
prevent the use of the AEC's facilities
where they could make additional—
perhaps unique—contributions to the
public health and safety. Such a bar-
rier could exist, for example, if a State
or local government were to seek the
AEC's assistance in performing certain
types of nonnuclear work for which the
AEC's facilities were especially qual-
ified. Section 7 of H.R. 13934 would
assist in removing such obstacles to ob-
taining the full benefits from the in-
vestment made by the American people
in the plants, equipment, and personnel
of the AEC.
This is a matter, incidentally, that I
and other members of the Joint Com-
mittee, particularly the ranking House
member of the committee, the gentle-
man from California [Mr. HOSMER],
have been concerned with for some
time. Included in the record of our
committee's hearings on the AEC's
budget for this fiscal year are letters I
sent to the Director of the Bureau of
the Budget and the Comptroller Gen-
eral last fall—see part 2 of AEC au-
thorizing legislation, fiscal year 1968,
pages 1285-1287—expressing my
views on this subject. I will ask unan-
imous consent to include these letters
in the RECORD at the conclusion of my
remarks, as well as excerpts from a
talk which I delivered in September
1966 dealing with this matter. I cite
these documents for the purpose of
illustrating the nature of our commit-
tee's interest in achieving the best uti-
lization of the AEC's facilities.
Mr. Chairman, I believe our national
needs today and in the years to come
will be too great to afford the luxury of
wasteful duplication of equipment, and
the building up of new teams of spe-
cialists, when we may already have
the means at hand to do the job. That
is why our committee supports the in-
clusion of section 7 in H.R. 13934.
Of course, once this bill is enacted
the Joint Committee would expect to
maintain careful supervision over the
AEC's use of this new authority to as-
sure that the intent of Congress is
being carried out. Moreover, the ap-
propriations committees and Congress
would, of course, retain complete con-
trol over the expenditure of funds by
the AEC pursuant to this law.
Mr. Chairman, that completes my
summary and statement concerning
H.R. 13934. The material I referred
to earlier is as follows:
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., November 15, 1966.
Hon. ELMER B. STAATS,
The Comptroller General of the United States,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR ELMER: I am sending you a copy of
my letter to the Bureau of the Budget as I
am sure jou will be inteiested in the proposal
which I am making.
I am not making this proposal for the pur-
-------
812
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
pose of obtaining work for the A.E.G. national
laboratories, but on behalf of utilizing these well
equipped laboratories and peisonnel for appio-
priate Federal projects in the field of anti pollu-
tion. I see no reason for building and equipping
duplicate laboratories and the costly and
laborious effort of obtaining scientific teams who
probably will not have the background of spe-
cialized knowledge which present scientific
personnel have in the A.E.G. laboratories.
I will want to go into this matter in more
detail in January with you and Chai les
Schultze.
Kindest regards.
Sincerely,
CHET HOLIFIELD,
Chairman.
JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY,
November 15, 1966.
Mr. CHARLES L. SCHULTZE,
Director, Bureau of the Budget, Washington,
D.C.
DEAR MR. SCHULTZE: I am writing to dis-
cuss the overall pollution of our envhonment,
which President Johnson has described as "one
of the most pervasive pioblems of our society,"
I also wish to offer some suggestions concerning
use of existing facilities to help resolve this
critical problem affecting our nation and the
entire world.
Month by month the degree of concern over
pollution, within the scientific community and
the public at large, becomes moie intense.
Clearly, it is the responsibility of the Fedeial
Government to furnish dynamic leadership in
planning and conducting a long term piogram
to deal with this matter. In this connection, I
have reviewed and been impressed by last
November's report of the Environmental Pollu-
tion Panel of the President's Science Advisoiy
Committee. On several occasions I have publicly
called attention to some of the Panel's most
significant conclusions.
One of these conclusions is that an urgent
need exists to provide additional tiained per-
sonnel, with adequate facilities, to launch the
required broadscale attack on the manifold
causes of environmental pollution. While I
generally agree with this view, I am concerned
that we may lose irretrievable lead-time in
establishing new organizations and facilities,
which will result in wasteful duplication and
fail to achieve the desired results. We can and
must make the optimum use of the qualified
people and facilities currently available to us.
For more than two decades, the Federal Gov-
ernment has supported a vast program of
research and development including the con-
struction of expensive laboratories and other
scientific establishments. These plants are
furnished with the most advanced equipment.
Thousands of scientists and engineers have
been trained at Federal expense, and there exists
in this country a number of highly skilled organ-
izations which we have built up and supported
in order to devote their energies to the attain-
ment of various national research and develop-
ment objectives. My efforts on the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy and the Govern-
ment Operations Committee have convinced me
of the critical need foi making better use of
these Federal reseaich establishments in solving
the dilemma of environmental pollution, particu-
larly as it i elates to urban design. This needs
to be done in order to maximise our scientific
and technological progiess and to achieve the
best allocation of scarce resources.
As a specific example I call your attention
to the Federally-supported atomic energy
i eseai ch laboratories. Unquestionably, these
facilities represent a national asset of incom-
parable value. The plants themselves are out-
standing in their quality and diversity. They
aie staffed by outstanding people, expert in
both the physical and life sciences. The systems
type approach which they have applied to
pioblems of the magnitude and complexity of
development of nuclear energy for peaceful and
military pui poses especially qualifies these
oiganizations for coping with the Herculean
tasks which must be accomplished in order to
safeguaid our environment against pollution.
Moreovei, and very importantly, these organ-
izations have had perhaps the most extensive
experience in many of the progi ams which
must be pui sued now with great vigor, such
as measui ements of pollution, studies of its
effects, and anal>sis of waste disposal methods.
I have discussed this mattei with Atomic
Energy Commission Chairman Glenn Seaboig,
and have requested him to consider carefully the
capabilities of our atomic energy facilities to
contribute to the national effoit to abate pol-
lution. I am also bringing this to your personal
attention because of your position of responsi-
bility concerning the oveiall piogiams of Ex-
ecutive Agencies. I hope you will specifically
review this subject with Dr. Seaborg to deter-
mine how best to utilize these outstanding
laboratories. Your efforts to assure that avail-
able resources are used wherever possible are of
the utmost importance in promoting an effective,
timely and economical Federal approach to this
problem. You can be assured of my support
in these efforts.
I believe it is of vital importance that the
matters I have discussed be given full and
early consideration. Accoidingly, I would ap-
preciate an opportunity to talk with you about
them as soon as our mutual schedules permit.
With kindest regards,
Sincerely,
CHET HOLIFIELD,
Chairman,
[p. 34398]
A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO THE
POLLUTION PROBLEM
(Excerpts from remarks by Congressman
CHET HOLIFIELD, chaiiman, Joint Committee
on Atomic Energy, at the Governors' Confer-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
813
ence, Gilbertsville, Ky., September 19, 1966)
I for one question whether present efforts
to bring environmental pollution under control
as we enter the era of the megalopolis will be
successful. Thus far most of the thinking on
the subject has been devoted to isolating single
aspects of the problem/—such as air pollution
resulting from the operation of automobiles, or
water pollution due to industrial opeiations.
I do not think that it is fruitful to consider
only specific types of pollution. The piecemeal
approach tends to limit the consideration to
only local areas of such pollution. Moieover,
certain areas tend to be emphasized while otheis
are neglected. For example, one important
aspect of environmental control which I think
has been neglected is the interrelation of
environmental pollution factors with our over-all
way of life. I think it is time now to look at
complete urban centers with control of environ-
mental pollution a fundamental factoi in their
design.
In many localities we are now witnessing
the construction of completely new cities,
sometimes through initiation of construction
of large new developments, and in many cases
through the wholesale redevelopment of existing
urban areas. Wouldn't it be wise to seize this
opportunity to take an oveiall approach to the
pollution problem? Let me give a few examples
of what I have in mind.
The automobile is now one of the greatest
contributors to atmospheric pollution. High-
ways and interchanges for automobiles present
severe problems in the design of uiban communi-
ties. It's quite possible that if we looked at
these questions as related pioblems—that is, as
part of a whole—we might find a combined
solution to both of them. In other woids, in
lieu of setting one group of planners upon the
problem of i educing pollution fi om the auto-
mobile and another group to solving the tians-
portation question, why not look at these as
interrelated problems? In doing so the planners
might find that restricted use of the automobile
and the creation of a central mass transpor-
tation system in the urban area would provide
superior commuting service while eliminating
both the problem of air pollution and the piob-
lem of concrete jungles. Other similar examples
of the value of considering urban design from
the standpoint of a complete system can read-
ily be given.
One fundamental factor which is critical to
the overall problem of urban design is the pro-
vision of energy. The availability of an ade-
quate supply of low cost energy which in itself
does not contaminate the environment will pei-
mit the elimination of many of oui pollution
problems. With adequate supplies of low cost
energy, water can be purified, air can be filtered,
automobiles can be propelled, vaiious wastes
can be converted and eliminated, and so foith.
Nuclear energy, for one, may fill this bill. Pei-
haps, therefore, energy should be given a more
central position in our urban planning.
The foiegoing amply indicates, I think, that
we can no longer consider piecemeal solutions to
our environmental problems. We must approach
the urban design problem on a bioader basis.
I also want to indicate that it is an uigent
matter to get on with the oveiall system analysis
appioach in our attempts to achieve piopei con-
trol of environmental pollution. We should also
utilize our great scientific centers to give us
guidance in this ciitical area. Our atomic
energy laboratories, foi example, contain a
concentration of scientific and technical talent
nevei before amassed. The accomplishments in
the field of nuclear weapons and civilian applica-
tions of nuclear energy I do not believe are
matched by any othei scientific effort. I think
it might help if I were to give a few examples to
illustrate the uniqueness of this national resource
and its adequacy to treat the oveiall system
analysis approach to the urban design problem.
The Atomic Energy Commission's national
laboratories are staffed by outstanding scientists
in both the physical and life sciences. The
concept of tracei techniques mastered and used
in the atomic eneigy program is a fundamental
tool in the analysis of our environment The
pioblems of nuclear weapons effects and fallout
have been faced by the national laboratories on
a worldwide basis using techniques directly
applicable to the analysis of pollution prob-
lems. The worldwide aspect of pollution is
stressed in the Report of the President's Science
Advisory Panel on Pollution where they lecom-
mended that data be obtained on pollution and
tempei ature ti ends in the atmosphere and
stratosphere throughout the world. The same
approach has been used concei ning measure-
ments in the oceans when i adioactive waste
disposal in the ocean was undei considei ation.
The biological studies of the effects of ladiation
on ecological systems is also an aiea of special
talent possessed by the national laboiatories.
The pest control work which has been achieved
through the use of radiation also covers an
important aspect of the enviionmental pollu-
tion problem. Of couise, as I mentioned before,
the development of nuclear powei plants, which
was done by our national laboratoiies, to supply
the electrical needs of urban centers is a funda-
mental factor in any approach to the pollution
pioblem. This one factor may prove to be the
most effective in contributing to a solution to
the pollution problem—but it must be con-
sidered in the overall analysis of our enviion-
mental pollution problem.
What I personally propose to do is to fol-
low up on this item with the Atomic Energy
Commission. What I would like to see the
Atomic Energy Commission do is mobilize
its resources and come up with an outline of how
to approach the oveiall environmental pollution
pi oblem of the megalopolis. If it is agreed
that the pioposed attack can give us valuable
assistance then we can look into how this com-
petence can be utilized.
-------
814
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
I firmly believe that our only hope for a satis-
factory solution to the general problems of
environmental pollution is the comprehensive
approach. The city or the megalopolis must be
considered as a whole and ways must be found
to provide man with his needs without poisoning
him.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the gen-
tleman from Tennessee [Mr. EVINS]
may extend his remarks at this point
in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. EVINS of Tennessee. Mr.
Chairman, I want to associate myself
with the remarks of the distinguished
gentleman from California [Mr. HOLI-
FIELD] and rise in support of H.R.
13934 which consists of amendments to
various atomic energy acts.
This is a most important and signifi-
cant bill, Mr. Chairman, in the growth
and progress of the atomic city of Oak
Ridge.
This bill contains provisions to re-
tain and continue the Atomic Energy
Commission's payments in lieu of taxes
to the city of Oak Ridge, among other
local governmental units. These pay-
ments are vital and essential to the city
of Oak Ridge because of the limitations
placed upon its tax base by its incep-
tion and development as a Federal city
with virtually all industry owned and
operated by a Federal agency. In other
words these payments assist in filling
the void in revenue which normally
could be expected to accrue to a munic-
ipality through a private industrial
base.
In 1955 payments were approved for
a 10-year period to the city government
of Oak Ridge. This bill under consid-
eration today proposes to continue
these payments with the provision that
future payments must be authorized
by the Joint Committee on Atomic En-
ergy and funds appropriated as needed
by the Committee on Appropriations.
In the meantime the city of Oak
Ridge is continuing and developing its
program of progress to expand its pri-
vate industrial base and its tax base. I
want to commend and congratulate the
city of Oak Ridge upon its achieve-
ments and objectives in this connection.
The Joint Committee on Atomic En-
ergy in its report praised the efforts of
Oak Ridge to achieve "financial inde-
pendence through self-help."
I strongly urge the passage of this
most important legislation. It is vital
—it is needed—it is the equitable
course to follow, and I urge passage of
this bill.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
The Joint Committee's evaluation of
H.R. 13934 was characterized by a bi-
partisan spirit, as has generally been
the case with our committee's activities.
This bill is, to some extent, "nuts and
bolts" legislation designed to perfect
inadequacies in existing law, or to con-
tinue cooperation already begun. The
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is the basic
charter by which the Nation's atomic
affairs are governed. From time to
time we bring before the Congress a
bill such as this one making such ad-
justments to the provisions of the act
as seem necessary or desirable. In
short this is sort of an annual house-
keeping exercise. The bill before us
also makes similar adjustments in the
Atomic Energy Community Act of 1955
and the Euratom Cooperation Act of
1958.
The vice chairman of our committee
has summarized the bill, and I need not
repeat what he has said. I would like
to emphasize that I regard this bill as
a moneymaker for the U.S. Gov-
ernment. At a time when we are
justifiably seriously concerned about
Government expenses and the balance
of payments, this bill offers a happy
contrast to some of the legislation that
has been presented to Congress.
* =;: * * #
[p. 34399]
SEC. 6. Section 28 of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended, is amended by revising the
fust two sentences thereof to read as follows:
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
815
"Notwithstanding the provisions of any other
law, the officer of the Army, Navy, or Air Force
serving as Assistant General Manager for Mili-
tary Application shall serve without prejudice
to his commissioned status as such officer. Any
such officer seiving as Assistant General Man-
ager for Military Application shall receive in
addition to his pay and allowances, including
special and incentive pays, for which pay and
allowances the Commission shall reimburse his
service, an amount equal to the difference
between such pay and allowances, including
special and incentive pays, and the compen-
sation established for this position."
SEC. 7. Section 33 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, is amended to read
as follows:
"SEC. 33. RESEARCH FOR OTHERS.—Where
the Commission finds private facilities or
laboratories are inadequate to the purpose,
it is authorized to conduct for other persons,
through its own facilities, such of those ac-
tivities and studies of the types specified in
section 31 as it deems appropriate to the de-
velopment of atomic energy. To the extent
the Commission determines that private facili-
ties or Jaboratories are inadequate to the pur-
pose, and that the Commission's facilities, or
scientific or technical resouices have the
potential of lending significant assistance to
othei peisons in the fields of protection of pub-
lic health and safety, the Commission may also
assist other peisons in these fields by conducting
foi such peisons, through the Commission's own
facilities, reseaich and development or training
activities and studies. The Commission is
authoiized to determine and make such charges
as in its disci etion may be desirable for the
conduct of the activities and studies referred to
in this section."
SEC. 8. Subsection 41 b. of the Atomic En-
ergy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended by
deleting the last sentence.
SEC. 9. Subsection 53 f. of the Atomic En-
ergy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended by
revising the first sentence thereof to lead as
follows: "The Commission is diiected to dis-
tribute within the United States sufficient special
nucleai material to permit the conduct of wide-
spread independent research ^nd development
activities to the maximum extent practicable."
SEC. 10. Subsection 53 c. (1) of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended
to read as follows:
"c. (1) The Commission may distribute
special nuclear material licensed under this
section by sale, lease, lease with option to buy,
giant, or through the provision of production
or enrichment seivices: Provided, however. That
unless othei wise authorized by law, the Com-
mission shall not after December 31, 1970, dis-
tribute special nuclear mateiial except by sale
or through the provision of pioduction 01
enrichment services to any person who possesses
or operates a utilization facility under a license
issued pursuant to section 103 or 104 b. for use
in the course of activities under such license; nor
shall the Commission permit any such person
after June 30, 1973, to continue leasing for use
in the course of such activities special nuclear
matei ial previously leased to such person by the
Commission."
SEC. 11. Subsection 161 n. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended
by striking out "57 a. (3)" and inserting in
lieu thereof "57 b.".
SEC. 12. Section 223 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, is amended by striking
out the letter "p." appearing after the word
"or" and inserting in lieu thereof the letter "o.".
SEC. 13. Section 5 of the EURATOM Co-
operation Act of 1958, as amended, is amended
to read as follows:
"SEC. 5. Pursuant to the provisions of sec-
tion 54 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, there is hereby authorized for sale
or lease to the Community—
"two hundred fifteen thousand kilograms of
contained uranium 235;
"one thousand five hundred kilograms of
plutonium; and
"thirty kilograms of uranium 233;
in accordance with the provisions of an agree-
ment or agreements for cooperation between
the Government of the United States and the
Community entered into pursuant to the provi-
sions of section 123 of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended: Provided, That the Gov-
einment of the United States obtains the equiva-
lent of a first lien of any such material sold to
the Community for which payment is not made
in full at the time of transfer. The Commission
may entei into contracts to provide, after De-
cember 31, 1568, for the producing or enriching
of all, or part of, the above-mentioned contained
uianium 235 pursuant to the provisions of
subsection Ifil v. (B) of said Act, as amended,
in lieu of sale or lease thereof."
SBC. 14. The table of contents of the Atomic
Energy Community Act of 1955, as amended, is
amended by inserting a new heading entitled
"Sec. 58. Piioiity sale of apaitment houses."
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HOLIFIELD
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. HOLIFIELD:
Stuke out all aftei the enacting clause of the
bill S 2644 and insert in lieu theieof the pio-
visions of H R 13934, as passed.
The amendment was agreed to.
The Senate bill was ordered to be
read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to re-
consider was laid on the table.
A similar House bill (H.R. 13934)
was laid on the table.
[p. 34403]
-------
816 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
l.lx ATOMIC ENERGY ACT AMENDMENTS
December 19, 1970, P.L. 91-560, §§1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 84 Stat. 1472, 1474
To amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to eliminate the require-
ment for a finding of practical value, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That paragraph
(4) of subsection 31 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended to read as follows:
"(4) utilization of special nuclear material, atomic energy,
and radioactive material and processes entailed in the utiliza-
tion or production of atomic energy or such material for all
other purposes, including industrial or commercial uses, the
generation of usable energy, and the demonstration of ad-
vances in the commercial or industrial application of atomic
energy; and".
SEC. 4. The first sentence of subsection 103 a. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended to read as follows:
"The Commission is authorized to issue licenses to persons apply-
ing therefor to transfer or receive in interstate commerce, manu-
facture, produce, transfer, acquire, possess, use, import, or export
under the terms of an agreement for cooperation arranged pur-
suant to section 123, utilization or production facilities for indus-
trial or commercial purposes."
SEC. 5. Subsection 104 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended to read as follows:
"b. As provided for in subsection 102 b. or 102 c., or where spe-
cifically authorized by law, the Commission is authorized to issue
licenses under this subsection to persons applying therefor for
utilization and production facilities for industrial and commercial
purposes. In issuing licenses under this subsection, the Commis-
sion shall impose the minimum amount of such regulations and
terms of license as will permit the Commission to fulfill its obliga-
tions under this Act."
[p. 1472]
SEC. 7. Subsection 161 n. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended to read as follows:
"n. delegate to the General Manager or other officers of the
Commission any of those functions assigned to it under this Act
except those specified in section 51, 57 b., 61, 108, 123, 145 b. (with
respect to the determination of those persons to whom the Commis-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 817
sion may reveal Restricted Data in the national interest), 145 f.,
and 161 a.;"
SEC. 8. The first proviso in subsection 161 v. of the Atomic En-
ergy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended to read as follows:
"Provided, That (i) prices for services under paragraph (A) of
this subsection shall be established on a nondiscriminatory basis;
(ii) prices for services under paragraph (B) of this subsection
shall be no less than prices under paragraph (A) of this sub-
section; and (iii) any prices established under this subsection shall
be on a basis of recovery of the Government's costs over a reason-
able period of time;"
[p. 1474]
l.lx(l) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
H.R. EEP. No. 91-1470,91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
AMENDING THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS
AMENDED, TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR
A FINDING OF PRACTICAL VALUE, TO PROVIDE FOR
PRELICENSING ANTITRUST REVIEW OF PRODUC-
TION AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES, AND TO EF-
FECTUATE CERTAIN OTHER PURPOSES PERTAINING
TO NUCLEAR FACILITIES
SEPTEMBER 24, 1970.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. HOLIFIELD, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 18679]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered H.R.
18679, an original committee bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended, and for other purposes, report favorably
thereon and recommend that the bill do pass.
-------
818 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
SUMMARY OF BILL
H.R. 18679 would amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, to accomplish the following principal purposes:
1. Abolish the concept of a finding of practical value (sec. 3 of
the bill).—The bill would amend section 102 of the Atomic Energy
Act which now requires that the Atomic Energy Commission first
make "a finding in Writing that any type of utilization or produc-
tion facility has been sufficiently developed to be of practical value
for industrial or commercial purposes" before the Commission
may issue licenses for such type of facility pursuant to section 103
of the act, the section concerned with "commercial" licenses.
Under the bill, utilization or production facilities for commercial
or industrial purposes would be subject to licensing under section
103, and no finding of "practical value" would be required. Two
exceptions to such licensing under section 103 would be provided
for and these are later described in this report.
2. Clarify the procedure for prelicensing antitrust review (sec.
6 of the bill).—The bill would clarify and revise the present text of
subsection
[p. 1]
105c. of the Atomic Energy Act relative to antitrust review of
applications for AEC licensing of utilization or production facilities
for industrial or commercial purposes.
3. Authorize variation of disciplines in the composition of atomic
safety and licensing boards (sec. 10 of the bill).—The bill would
amend the first sentence of subsection 191a. which now requires
that of the three members of any atomic safety and licensing board
two members "shall be technically qualified" and the third "shall
be qualified in the conduct of administrative proceedings." The
amendment in the bill would permit two members to have "such
technical or other qualifications as the Commission deems ap-
propriate to the issues to be decided"; the third member would, as
in the present text of this section, be one "qualified in the conduct
of administrative proceedings."
4. Require the Government to enter into an arrangement with
the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements
for a comprehensive and continuing review of basic radiation pro-
tection standards, and an arrangement with the National Acad-
emy of Sciences for a comprehensive and continuing review of the
biological effects of radiation on man and the ecology (sec. 11 of
the bill).—The bill would substitute the scientific efforts of these
eminent bodies for the functions presently required of the Fed-
eral Radiation Council pursuant to subsection 274h. of the Atomic
Energy Act.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 819
5. Reaffirm mth greater clarity the intention of the Joint Com-
mittee, and in the opinion of the committee the intention of the
Congress, underlying a provision of the Private Ownership of
Special Nuclear Materials Act, enacted into law as Public Laiv
88-489 on August 2G, 1964 (sec. 8 of the bill).—The bill would
change several words in subsection 161 v. of the Atomic Energy
Act to emphasize the underlying intention as evidenced by the
legislative history, and as correctly discerned by the Comptroller
General of the United States in the GAO "Report to the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy" of July 17, 1970, captioned "Re-
view of Proposed Revisions to the Price and Criteria for Uranium
Enrichment Services." Although the General Accounting Office
questions the legality of a proposed implementation by the AEC of
subsection 161 v. . f the Atomic Energy Act, on the ground that it
does not appear to be consistent with the intention of the Congress
in enacting the statute, the committee is concerned that the AEC
has not desisted; the committee recommends that the original leg-
islative intent be reiterated and the wording of the statute but-
tressed in support of its intended purpose.
The bill is comprised of three separate parts, although the three
parts all relate to licensed nuclear facilities. The first part, dis-
cussed below under the heading "Part I," covers items 1, 2, and 3
above and embraces sections 1 through 7 and sections 9 and 10 of
the bill. Part II pertains to item 4 above and section 11 of the
bill. Part III pertains to item 5 above and section 8 of the bill.
PART!
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Shortly after the completion by the Commission of its first rule-
making proceeding for consideration of a finding of "practical
value" under section 102 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which
resulted
[P. 2]
in the determination by the Commission, in December 1965
"that there has not yet been sufficient demonstration of the
cost of construction and operation of light water, nuclear electric
plants to warrant making a statutory finding that any types of
such facilities have been sufficiently developed to be of practical
value within the meaning of section 102," the Joint Committee re-
quested the AEC's views on the continued need for the statutory
requirement for such finding. The Commission replied that the
principal bases underlying the "practical value" provisions of the
1954 act had receded in significance and that it was considering
-------
820 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
proposing legislation to eliminate the "practical value" concept
from the statute.1
In 1967, during the first session of the 90th Congress, Senators
Aiken and Kennedy, of New York, introduced a bill (S. 2564, 90th
Cong., first sess., 1967) which would have enlarged substantially
the Commission's jurisdiction over the licensing of reactors. S.
2564 would, among other things, have required consideration in
the licensing process of the impact of a proposed nuclear plant on
the most efficient development of power resources in the particular
region; and it would have barred the issuance of a nuclear plant
license unless the Commission found that the applicant had
granted to all interested utilities an opportunity to participate "to
a fair and reasonable" extent in the ownership of the proposed
facility.
S. 2564 was the subject of extensive hearings before the Joint
Committee in 1968.- Following these hearings, the Commission
proposed legislation (S. 3960, 90th Cong., second sess., 1968) and
additional bills were introduced by members of the Joint Commit-
tee (S. 3851, H.R. 18669, 90th Cong., second sess., 1968) which
would have eliminated the present statutory requirement for a
finding of "practical value" as a condition of commercial licensing.
Because of the need for further comment by interested Govern-
ment agencies and for additional hearings, no legislative action
was taken on these bills while the 90th Congress was in session;
however, the Joint Committee indicated that consideration of the
"practical value" question would be a matter for its attention in the
next Congress.
During the first session of the 91st Congress, several legislative
measures were introduced concerning prelicensing review of nu-
clear powerplants; S. 212 was introduced on January 15, 1969, by
Senator Anderson, for himself and Senator Aiken; H.R. 8289 was
introduced on March 5, 1969, by Representative Holifield, for him-
self and Representative Price; H.R. 9647 was introduced on March
27, 1969, by Representative Holifield, by request (H.R. 9647, and
the identical companion bill, S. 1883, introduced by Senator Pas-
tore on Apr. 18, 1969, are the AEG bills); and S. 2768 was intro-
duced on August 4, 1969, by Senator Tydings.
S. 212, H.R. 8289, and H.R. 9647 would eliminate from the
1This exchange of correspondence is printed in "Hearings on Licensing and Regulation of
Nuclear Reactors" before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 90th Cong., first sess., pt. 2,
app. 5, pp. 906, 908-909 (1967). See also testimony of Commissioner Ramey before the Joint
Committee on Aug. 29, 1966, which is printed in "Hearings on AEC Omnibus Legislation—1967,"
before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, 90th Cong., first sess., app. 7, pp. 194-195 (1967).
2 "Hearings on Participation by Small Electrical Utilities in Nuclear Power," before the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy, 90th Cong., second sess., pts. 1 and 2 (1968).
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 821
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 the requirement that a finding of the
"practical value" of a type of utilization or production facility be
made before such type of facility may be licensed by the AEC as
"commercial."
[P. 3]
Under these legislative proposals, practically all nuclear power-
plants would be subject to a prelicensing antitrust review
by the Commission, with the advice of the Attorney General,
pursuant to a revised subsection 105c. S. 212 also would con-
fer upon the Commission regulatory authority to control the
thermal effects of heated effluents discharged from nuclear power-
plants. S. 2768 would declare the protection of the environment
to be a purpose of the Atomic Energy Act and would authorize
the Commission to establish "such standards to protect and pro-
mote the preservation of environmental quality" as the Commis-
sion deems appropriate.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law
91-190) and the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1970 (Public
Law 91-224) were enacted into law subsequent, to the introduction
of the above-mentioned bills. These statutes add certain functions
concerning environmental matters to the licensing activities of
Federal agencies. In light of the recent laws the Joint Committee
principally focused its current attention on the advisability of de-
leting the existing prerequisite to licensing under section 103—a
finding of "practical value"—and on a suitable statutory process
for the "commercial" licensing of nuclear facilities that includes
due regard for antitrust considerations.
During the second session of the 90th Congress, initial public
hearings were held by the committee on bills (H.R. 18667 and S.
3851) substantially similar to S. 212 and H.R. 8289.
During the 91st Congress, public hearings were held by the
committee in 1969 and 1970. These hearings, summarized below,
are published under the caption "Prelicensing Antitrust Review of
Nuclear Powerplants, Hearings before the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy," 91st Congress, 1st session, part 1 (1969), and
91st Congress, 2d session, part 2 (1970).
The full Joint Committee met in executive session on July 28,
1970, and approved certain amendments to H.R. 8289, H.R. 9647,
S. 212, and S. 1883 which were incorporated in an original bill in-
troduced on July 28, 1970, by Chairman Holifield (for himself,
Representative Price of Illinois, and Representative Hosmer) as
H.R. 18679 and on July 29, 1970, by Vice Chairman Pastore as S.
4141. At that meeting the committee also voted to approve the
reporting of the original bill favorably without amendment and
-------
822 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
to adopt this committee report. Thereafter, on September 24,
1970, the committee effected several changes in the text of the re-
port and voted unanimously to adopt the report as revised.
HEARINGS
Public hearings on S. 212, H.R. 8289, H.R. 9647, S. 1883 and S.
2768 were held on November 18, 19, and 20, 1969, and on April 14,
15, and 16, 1970. Representatives of the Commission and of var-
ious other Federal agencies and departments interested in the leg-
islation testified at the initial hearings (November 18-20, 1969).
Part 2 of the hearings (April 14-16, 1970) afforded interested in-
dividuals and organizations the opportunity to present their views
on the proposed legislation.
The following witnesses appeared on behalf of the U.S. Atomic
Energy Commission:
James T. Ramey, Commissioner
Joseph F. Hennessey, General Counsel
[p. 4]
The following additional witnesses appeared on behalf of other
Federal agencies and departments:
Carl L. Klein, Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and
Research, Department of the Interior.
Walker B. Comegys, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Anti-
trust Division, Department of Justice.
S. David Freeman, Director, Energy Policy Staff, Office of
Science and Technology.
Witnesses presenting the views of industry and the public are
listed below in the order of their appearance at the hearings on
April 14-16, 1970:
Carl Horn, Jr., vice president, finance, and general counsel,
Duke Power Co., on behalf of the Edison Electric Institute
(accompanied by John J. Kearney).
Alex Radin, general manager, American Public Power Asso-
ciation (accompanied by Lawrence Hobart).
J. Harris Ward, chairman of the board, Commonwealth Ed-
ison Co.
Sherman R. Knapp, chairman of the board, Northeast Utilities
(accompanied by C. Duane Blinn of Day, Berry & Howard,
Hartford, Conn.).
Michael F. Collins, secretary-treasurer, Municipal Electric
Association of Massachusetts, represented by George
Spiegel, counsel, and accompanied by Worth Rowley,
counsel.
Charles A. Robinson, Jr., staff counsel to the general man-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 823
ager, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association.
William R. Gould, senior vice president, Southern California
Edison Co., Los Angeles, Calif, (accompanied by Alan M.
Nedry and David N. Barry III).
William C. Wise, counsel, Mid-West Electric Consumers As-
sociation, Inc.
J. 0. Tally, Jr., general counsel, Electricities of North
Carolina.
Shearon Harris, chairman of the board of directors and pres-
ident of the Carolina Power & Light Co. (accompanied by
Charles D. Barham, Jr., associate general counsel).
Edward Berlin of Berlin, Roisman & Kessler, general counsel
for the Consumer Federation of America.
James H. Campbell, president of Consumers Power Co., Jack-
son, Mich, (accompanied by Jud Bacon).
Donald C. Allen, vice president of New England Electric Sys-
tem and President of Yankee Atomic Electric Co. (accom-
panied by Frederick E. Greenman).
George H. R. Taylor, secretary, AFL-CIO Staff Committee
on Atomic Energy and Natural Resources.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
A. BACKGROUND
1. The Atomic Energy Act of 1946
Almost a quarter century ago, the Atomic Energy Act of 1946
committed fully and securely to the exclusive control of the spe-
cially
[p. 5]
created civilian agency called the Atomic Energy Commission
the development, utilization and control of atomic energy. This
major statute recognized at the outset that whereas the sig-
nificance of the atomic bomb was evident, the beneficial potential of
the new source of energy for civilian purposes had yet to be ex-
plored. The national policy was expressed that "subject at all
times to the paramount objective of assuring the common defense
and security, the development and utilization of atomic energy
shall, so far as practicable, be directed toward improving the pub-
lic welfare, increasing the standard of living, strengthening free
competition in private enterprise, and promoting world peace."
Section 7 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 included the follow-
ing provisions:
(b) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Whenever in its opinion, any
industrial, commercial, or other nonmilitary use of fissionable
-------
824 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
material or atomic energy has been sufficiently developed to
be of practical value, the Commission shall prepare a report
to the President stating all the facts with respect to such use,
the Commission's estimate of the social, political, economic,
and international effects of such use and the Commission's
recommendations for necessary or desirable supplemental
legislation. The President shall then transmit this report to
the Congress together with his recommendations. No license
for any manufacture, production, export, or use shall be issued
by the Commission under this section until after (1) a report
with respect to such manufacture, production, export, or use
has been filed with the Congress; and (2) a period of ninety
days in which the Congress was in session has elapsed after
the report has been so filed. In computing such period of
ninety days there shall be excluded the days on which either
House is not in session because of an adjournment of more
than three days.
(c) ISSUANCE OF LICENSES.—After such ninety-day period,
unless hereafter prohibited by law, the Commission may li-
cense such manufacture, production, export, or use in accord-
ance with such procedures and subject to such conditions as it
may by regulation establish to effectuate the provisions of this
Act. The Commission is authorized and directed to issue li-
censes on a nonexclusive basis and to supply to the extent
available appropriate quantities of fissionable material to li-
censees (1) whose proposed activities will serve some useful
purpose proportionate to the quantities of fissionable material
to be consumed; (2) v/ho are equipped to observe such safety
standards to protect health and to minimize danger from ex-
plosion or other hazard to life or property as the Commission
may establish; and (3) who agree to make available to the
Commission such technical information and data concerning
their activities pursuant to such licenses as the Commission
may determine necessary to encourage similar activities by
as many licensees as possible. Each such license shall be is-
sued for a specified period, shall be revocable at any time by
the Commission
[p. 6]
in accordance with such procedures as the Commission may
establish, and may be renewed upon the expiration of
such period. Where activities under any license might
serve to maintain or to foster the growth of monopoly,
restraint of trade, unlawful competition, or other trade posi-
tion inimical to the entry of new, freely competitive enter-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 825
prises in the field, the Commission is authorized and directed
to refuse to issue such license or to establish such conditions
to prevent these results as the Commission, in consultation
with the Attorney General, may determine. The Commission
shall report promptly to the Attorney General any informa-
tion it may have with respect to any utilization of fissionable
material or atomic energy which appears to have these
results. * * *
The opening section of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 rec-
ognized that many factors then unknown would affect the use of
atomic energy for civilian purposes, and it wisely declared that
"any legislation will necessarily be subject to revision from time
to time."
No "practical value" report was made by the Commission pur-
suant to subsection 7(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1946, and no
antitrust exercise was conducted under subsection 7 (c) of that act,
with respect to any utilization or production facility.
Within 8 years after the passage of the 1946 act Congress began
to consider, and to discuss and debate extensively, major proposed
revisions intended to bring the 1946 act up to date in relation to the
many developments achieved in the interim and to the outlook at
that time for the future.
2. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
When the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 was passed, it was the
hope of the Congress that the major revisions designed to lessen
the Government's monopolistic grip on civilian applications of
atomic energy would encourage private industry and the free en-
terprise system to contribute markedly to the development and use
of atomic energy to increase the standard of living and improve the
general welfare.
The legislative report accompanying the House and Senate bills
(H.R. 9757 and S. 3690) that substantially evolved into the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 included the following remarks under the
caption "Changing Perspectives in Atomic Energy":
* * * It was commonly believed 8 years ago that the gen-
eration of useful power from atomic energy was a distant
goal, a very distant goal. Atomic energy then was 95 percent
for military purposes, with possibly 5 percent for peacetime
uses. The resources of the Atomic Energy Commission and
of its contractors appeared fully adequate to develop atomic-
power reactors at a rate consistent with foreseeable technical
progress. Moreover, there was little experience concerning
-------
826 LEGAL COMPILATION—EADIATION
the health hazards involved in operating atomic plants, and
this fact was in itsejf a compelling argument for making the
manufacture and use of atomic materials a Government
monopoly.
Today, however, we can draw on the experience acquired
[p. 7]
in designing, building, and operating more than a score of
atomic reactors. It is now evident that greater private par-
ticipation in power development need not bring with it at-
tendant hazards to the health and safety of the American
people. Moreover, the atomic-reactor art has already reached
the point where atomic power at prices competitive with elec-
tricity derived from conventional fuels is on the horizon,
though not within our immediate reach. * * *
Many technological problems remain to be solved before
widespread atomic power, at competitive prices, is a reality.
It is clear to us that continued Government research and de-
velopment, using Government funds, will be indispensable
to a speedy and resolute attack on these problems. It is
equally clear to us, however, that the goal of atomic power
at competitive prices will be reached more quickly if private
enterprise, using private funds, is now encouraged to play a
far larger role in the development of atomic power than is
permitted under existing legislation. In particular, we do not
believe that any developmental program carried out solely
under governmental auspices, no matter how efficient it may
be, can substitute for the cost-cutting and other incentives of
free and competitive enterprise. * * *
*******
In summary: Statutory provisions which were in harmony
with the state of atomic development in 1946 are no longer
consistent with the realities of atomic energy in 1954. Legis-
lation not responsive to the needs and problems of today can
serve only to deny our Nation, and like-minded nations as
well, the true promise of atomic energy—both in augmenting
the total military strength of the free world, and in increasing
opportunities for beneficent uses of the atom.
Among the major revisions effected by the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954 are those in chapter 10 of the 1954 act concerned with
"Atomic Energy Licenses."
In chapter 10, the concept of "practical value," utilized in the
1946 act, was retained in substance (sec. 102); however, it was
converted to the form of "a finding in writing" to be made by the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 827
Commission whenever it concluded "that any type of utilization or
production facility has been sufficiently developed to be of practical
value for industrial or commercial purposes." Only subsequent to
such a finding could the Commission, in accordance with the pro-
visions of chapter 10, issue "commercial" licenses for the type of
utilization or production facility covered by its finding of practical
values (sec. 103).
To date, the Commission has not made an affirmative finding of
practical value, although it has carefully considered the matter on
two separate occasions. Only July 10, 1964, the Commission pub-
lished a notice in the Federal Register (29 F.R. 9458) that it had
under consideration the matter of a possible finding of practical
value with respect to some type or types of light water nuclear
powerplants. It requested public comments, and then conducted
an extensive rule making proceeding in the course of which over
100 written comments
[p. 8]
were received. This exercise culminated in the Commission's
determination, dated December 29, 1965, to decline to make a
section 102 finding on the ground that nuclear powerplant oper-
ating experience up to that time was limited to small-scale facili-
ties that were not economically competitive; the Commission stated:
While certain economic evaluations governing the award
of contracts for scaled-up plants not involving Government
assistance provide strong indication that economic competi-
tiveness will be achieved, we have decided to exercise our
discretion to await a reliable estimate of the economics based
upon a demonstration of the technology and plant per-
formance. Pending the completion of scaled-up plants, and
the information to be obtained from their operation, and in
light of the legislative history, the Commission has deter-
mined that there has not yet been sufficient demonstration
of the cost of construction and operation of light water,
nuclear plants to warrant making a statutory finding that
any types of such facilities have been sufficiently developed
to be of practical value within the meaning of section 102
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
On October 18, 1966, following another rulemaking petition and
Commission consideration, the Commission again determined that
a section 102 finding of "practical value" should not be made, and
that such a finding should await a reliable estimate of the ap-
plicable economics based upon a demonstration of plant perform-
ance and the nuclear technology involved. Recently, on June 26,
-------
828 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
1970, the Commission published a notice in the Federal Register
(35 F.R. 10460) that it would again consider the matter of a
finding of "practical value," and that it was seeking public
comment.
In accordance with chapter 10 of the 1954 act, because there has
not yet been a finding of practical value no license for a nuclear
powerplant or other nuclear facility has been issued under section
103. To date, the construction and operation of all civilian nuclear
powerplants have been licensed under subsection 104b. which pro-
vides for the licensing of "utilization and production facilities in-
volved in the conduct of research and development activities
leading to the demonstration of the practical value of such facil-
ities for industrial or commercial purposes."
The high degree of practical interest and the controversies that
have centered on the difference between licensing a nuclear power-
plant under section 103 and under subsection 104 b. are essentially
due to subsection 105 c. in chapter 10 of the 1954 act. As finally
composed, after considerable discussion and debate by the 83d
Congress which passed the 1954 act, the text of subsection 105 c.
bore only some resemblance to the provisions of subsection 7(c) of
the 1946 act in regard to antitrust considerations. The Commis-
sion's express authority in subsection 7(c) to refuse to issue a li-
cense or to establish conditions in order to prevent antitrust
situations was muted into dead silence. The general antitrust
theme was restated simply in terms of advice from the Attorney
General. The nature and scope of the advice were described in a
broad-brush clause of inexact import. Subsection 105 c. reads as
follows:
[p.' 9]
c. Whenever the Commission proposes to issue any license
to any person under section 103, it shall notify the Attorney
General of the proposed license and the proposed terms and
conditions thereof, except such classes or types of licenses,
as the Commission, with the approval of the Attorney Gen-
eral, may determine would not significantly affect the li-
censee's activities under the antitrust laws as specified in
subsection 105 a. Within a reasonable time, in no event to
exceed 90 days after receiving such notification, the Attorney
General shall advise the Commission whether, insofar as he
can determine, the proposed license would tend to create or
maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws, and
such advice shall be published in the Federal Register. Upon
the request of the Attorney General, the Commission shall
furnish or cause to be furnished such information as the At-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 829
torney General determines to be appropriate or necessary to
enable him to give the advice called for by this section.
Several of the present members of the committee served on this
body 16 years ago during the period when the 1954 act was con-
ceptualized, heavily debated, and finally crystallized and enacted by
the Congress. The recollections of these members have not
dimmed in regard to the evolvement and formulation of the princi-
pal features of chapter 10 and of other major features of the 1954
act. The detailed review by the committee staff of the 10 inches of
legislative history bearing on the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 has
served to confirm their recollections, as well as to assist the whole
committee in its review of the salient background events.
In the full perspective that a mature backward look can now pro-
vide, it is obvious that the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 failed to
anticipate the exact course of the future development and use of
civilian nuclear power and to devise a perfect licensing system.
Also, as a consequence of the many doubts and concerns in the
Congress, the enacted bill, including chapter 10, contained a num-
ber of compromise provisions, some of them in the form of rela-
tively vague or ambiguous language. At that time a finding of
practical value and the applicability of subsection 105 c. were
matters for the distant future, and the whole projected picture of
things to come varied considerably depending on individual imag-
inations, preferences and anxieties. When the Senate passed the
atomic energy bill (H.R. 9757 after substituting language of S.
3690) on July 27, 1954, Senator Ervin who voted for the bill, made
a statement which included the following remarks:
* * * Much of the debate in the Senate overemphasized the
power aspects of the bill. This is true because experts in the
atomic energy field state that it will be 12 years or more before
it will be economically feasible to produce power by atomic
energy for general uses in any substantial quantities. As a
consequence, those who have overemphasized the power
aspects of the matter are somewhat like the man who invited
his friends to a rabbit stew before he made the rabbit gum 1
to catch the rabbit.
[p. 10]
As a result of my study I reached the deliberate conclusion
that the atomic energy bill is a meritorious measure. To be
1 Well known in North Carolina as a rabbit trap (courtesy of Senator Ervin's office).
-------
830 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
sure it is not perfect. No bill of such magnitude can be
perfect.
It is of interest to note that the bill which the Senate passed on
July 27, 1954, contained the following version of subsection 105
(c):
c. Whenever the Commission proposes to issue any li-
cense to any person under section 103, it shall notify the At-
torney General of the proposed license and the proposed terms
and conditions thereof, except such classes or types of li-
censes, as the Commission, with the approval of the Attorney
General, may determine would not significantly affect the li-
censee's activities under the antitrust laws as specified in sub-
section 105 a. Within a reasonable time, in no event to exceed
ninety days after receiving such notification, the Attorney
General shall advise the Commission whether, insofar as he
can determine, the proposed license would tend to create or
maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws. //
the Attorney General advises the Commission that issuing the
license ivould create or maintain a situation inconsistent with
the antitrust laivs, then the Commission shall not issue such
license unless it makes a finding approved by the President
that the issuance of such license is essential to the common de-
fense and security, and the finding is published in the Fed-
eral Register. Upon the request of the Attorney General, the
Commission shall furnish or cause to be furnished such in-
formation as the Attorney General determines to be ap-
propriate or necessary, to enable him to give the advice called
for by this section. [Italics added.]
The italicized sentence had been proposed by Senator Humphrey,
and his amendment to the text had been supported by Senator
Hickenlooper, the vice chairman of the Joint Committee and in
charge of the bill on the floor of the Senate. The explanatory col-
loquy in the Senate on July 24, 1954 in regard to this amendment
clearly indicates that the words "tend to" were purposely omitted
and that the phrase "inconsistent with the antitrust laws" was in-
tended to be the equivalent of actual violation of the antitrust laws.
The Senate version on July 27, 1954, recaptured to some extent
the feature in subsection 105 c. of the House and Senate bills as
originally reported out by the Joint Committee which specifically
would have placed an obligation on the Commission not to issue a
license if the Attorney General or the Federal Trade Commission
believed that the proposed license would tend to create or main-
tain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws and if, there-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 831
after, the Federal Trade Commission so found under the basic
laws governing antitrust matters and the jurisdiction of the Fed-
eral Trade Commission. This provision went on to state that all
parties to the Federal Trade Commission's hearings could appeal
the Federal Trade Commission's determination in the courts.
Debates on the provisions of the atomic energy bills continued in
the Congress into August 1954. Ultimately, after two conference
reports, the Senate and the House agreed on the version which was
[p. ll]
signed into law by the President on August 30, 1954. The House-
Senate committee of conference deleted from subsection 105 c. the
sentence added by the Humphrey amendment. In the accompany-
ing statement by the Managers on the Part of the House the dele-
tion was explained as follows:
In connection with the issuance of licenses for utilization
and production facilities, the House bill provided certain re-
quirements with respect to the antitrust laws (sec. 105).
Among these was the requirement that the Commission ob-
tain the advice of the Attorney General before issuing any
such license. The Senate amendment required that the Com-
mission follow the advice of the Attorney General unless the
President made a finding that the issuance of such a license
was essential to the common defense and security and the find-
ing was published in the Federal Register. This amendment
in effect made the advice of the Attorney General a decision
binding upon the Commission and the applicant without hear-
ing. The conference substitute deletes the portion of the pro-
vision added by the Senate amendment which required that
the advice of the Attorney General be followed, but requires
that the advice of the Attorney General be published in the
Federal Register.
Though the language and possible effect of subsection 105 c. of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 were born unclear, it can scarcely
be said after a full review of the history of the 1954 act that the
text of subsection 105 c. was inadvertently or haphazardly created.
Rather, it was the deliberate product of a very deliberative legisla-
tive process.
In any event, the mechanism of subsection 105 c.—however the
courts would be inclined to construe it—was intended to lie dor-
mant until awakened into activity by a finding of practical value
by the Commission followed by the proposed issuance of a "com-
mercial" license for the type of nuclear facility covered by the
finding. Unlike the sleeping princess of the fairytale, who by def-
-------
832 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
inition was not only beautiful but also endurable on a live-happily-
ever-afterward basis, the awakening into activity of subsection
105 c., as presently constituted, would probably mainly result in
uncertainty, expensive delays, and extended litigation. Subsection
105 c. in chapter 10 of the 1954 act needs to be clarified and
revised.
Chapter 10, which this committee strongly believes should be
clarified and improved, contains in the first two subsections of sec-
tion 105 provisions which the committee does not propose to
amend.
Subsection 105 b. contains the broad-brush requirement that the
Commission promptly report to the Attorney General "any infor-
mation it may have with respect to any utilization of special nu-
clear material or atomic energy which appears to violate or to tend
toward the violation of any of" the antitrust laws "or to restricted
free competition in private enterprise." This requirement is sep-
arate and distinct from subsection 105 c. and, in the judgment of
the committee, is both sound in concept and practical. The fun-
nel for information of this general sort ought to have a very wide
mouth to assure that the Attorney General is as fully informed as
possible.
[p. 12]
Subsection 105 a. wisely emphasizes that "Nothing contained
in this Act"—and this includes subsection 105 c.—"shall relieve
any person from the operation" of the antitrust laws. It further
provides that in the event a licensee is found to have violated the
antitrust laws in the conduct of the licensed activities that "the
Commission may suspend, revoke, or take such other action as it
may deem necessary with respect to any license issued by the
Commission under the provisions of this Act."
B. PRINCIPAL REASONS FOR PROPOSED LEGISLATION
1. Finding of 'practical value
The concept of a "Finding of Practical Value" (sec. 102), plau-
sible in 1954 when transmuted from the cautious approach of sub-
section 7(b) of the 1946 act, has been overtaken by developments.
It is now an archaic symbol of what may once have been a good
idea. Clearly it is now neither practical nor of value. Unfortu-
nately, under the present law it is also a formidable roadblock to
"commercial" (sec. 103) licensing of nuclear powerplants and
other industrially or commercially useful nuclear facilities. The
Commission has recently begun once again the cumbersome ex-
ercise of attempting to surmount this hurdle to section 103 li-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 833
censing, and a good deal of time and expense will be consumed in
the full execution of the administrative process entailed. When it
ends the Commission may or may not make an affirmative finding
with respect to a type or types of facility, and it seems prudent to
assume that the Commission's determination—whatever it turns
out to be—will set off another round of controversy.
If the Commission makes a finding of "practical value," serious
legal problems would probably come into play. These could in-
clude such matters as the convertibility of subsection 104 b. li-
censes to section 103 licenses, and, of course, the interpretation
and effect of the provisions of subsection 105 c. The accompany-
ing delays and expense could be extremely onerous. It must be
borne in mind that the licensing process is already being extended
and sorely strained these days, and costly delays are being ex-
perienced, due to the sudden impact of the National Environ-
mental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190) and the Water
Quality Improvement Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-224); thus far,
the attempted implementation of these acts seems to be creating
more delays due to legal questions of interpretation and imple-
mentation than to environmental considerations as such.
All of the witnesses at the committee's hearings and all the ad-
vice the committee has received on this subject, from within and
outside of the Government, favor removal of the concept of "prac-
tical value" from the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. The committee
has endeavored to proceed responsibly with legislation to accom-
plish this objective in a sensible manner.
2. Clarification of procedure for prelicensing antitrust review
In the committee's judgment, no sensible legislation to remove
the roadblock to "commercial" licensing under section 103 could
fail to clarify and revise the present provisions of subsection 105c.
The bill proposed by the committee clarifies the antitrust review
standard and explicitly describes the Commission's authority and
responsibility in relation to advice from the Attorney General.
The clarified standard
[p. 13]
and the specified procedures are reasonable and workable. The
bill and the explanation in this report should assure a full under-
standing of the standard and of the process entailed. A detailed
review of the new subsection 105c. is contained in the section-by-
section account in this report.
Of course, the committee is intensely aware that around the
subject of prelicensing review and the provisions of subsection
105c., hover opinions and emotions ranging from one extreme to
-------
834 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
the other pole. At one extremity is the view that no prelicensing
antitrust review is either necessary or advisable and that the first
two subsections of section 105 concerned with violation of the anti-
trust laws and the information which the Commission is obliged to
report to the Attorney General are wholly adequate to deal with
antitrust considerations. Additionally, there are those who point
out that it is unreasonable and unwise to inflict on the construction
or operation of nuclear powerplants and the AEC licensing process
any antitrust review mechanism that is not required in connection
with other types of generating facilities. At the opposite pole is
the view that the licensing process should be used not only to nip
in the bud any incipient antitrust situation but also to further such
competitive postures, outside of the ambit of the provisions and
established policies of the antitrust laws, as the Commission might
consider beneficial to the free enterprise system. The Joint Com-
mittee does not favor, and the bill does not satisfy, either extreme
view.
The committee is recommending the enactment of prelicensing
review provisions which—as in the proposed Atomic Energy Act
of 1954 that the Joint Committee originally reported out, and as is
in the version of subsection 105c. that the Senate passed on July 27,
1954—do not stop at the point of the Attorney General's advice,
but go on to describe the role of the Commission with respect to
potential antitrust situations.
The legislation proposed by the committee provides for a finding
by the Commission "as to whether the activities under the license
would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust
laws as specified in subsection 105a." The concept of certainty of
contravention of the antitrust laws or the policies clearly under-
lying these laws is not intended to be implicit in this standard; nor
is mere possibility of inconsistency. It is intended that the finding
be based on reasonable probability of contravention of the anti-
trust laws or the policies clearly underlying these laws. It is in-
tended that, in effect, the Commission will conclude whether, in its
judgment, it is reasonably probable that the activities under the
license would, when the license is issued or thereafter, be incon-
sistent with any of the antitrust laws or the policies clearly under-
lying these laws.
It is important to note that the antitrust laws within the ambit
of subsection 105 c. of the bill are all the laws specified in sub-
section 105 a. These include the statutory provisions pertaining to
the Federal Trade Commission, which normally are not identified
as antitrust law. Accordingly, the focus for the Commission's
finding will, for example, include consideration of the admonition
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 835
in section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended,
that "Unfair methods of competition in commerce, and unfair and
deceptive acts in commerce, are declared unlawful."
[p. 14]
The committee is well aware of the phrases "may be" and "tend
to" in the Clayton Act, and of the meaning they have been given by
virtue of decisions of the Supreme Court and the will of Congress
—namely, reasonable probability. The committee has—very de-
liberately—also chosen the touchstone of reasonable probability
for the standard to be considered by the Commission under the
revised subsection 105 c. of the bill.
The committee did not deem it advisable to extend the bound-
aries of the considerations to be taken into account by the Com-
mission beyond the antitrust laws and the policies clearly
underlying those laws. The situation is different in respect to
AEC's developmental regime; here Government funds are exten-
sively devoted to the research and development aspects of atomic
energy and the Commission has the duty not only to see to it that
the funds are employed to best advantage in relation to the specific
statutory missions involved but to be mindful of the general ob-
jective of strengthening free competition in private enterprise.
The absence of specific, guiding criteria toward this objective,
where the expense of the activity is borne by the Government, does
not amount to an intolerably gross and unfair infliction on private
enterprise of the convictions of a Federal agency, though these
may often be based on generally debatable philosophical principles.
Here, too, the committee, in its authorization process and in its
"watchdog" role, is in a position to react with respect to any par-
ticular Commission measure relative to the objective of strength-
ening free competition in private enterprise which the committee
may believe to be insupportable or unwise; the committee could not
so effectively react in context of a licensing matter. The commit-
tee recognizes that there is not a clear boundary between antitrust
considerations in relation to the strengthening of free competition
in free enterprise and measures to accomplish such objective for
reasons other than the antitrust laws or underlying antitrust pol-
icy; the Commission will have to exercise discretion and judgment.
3. Authorization for varying expertise in the composition of atomic
safety and licensing boards
Under the present provisions of subsection 191 a. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954 two of the three members of an atomic safety
and licensing board must "be technically qualified"; the third mem-
ber must "be qualified in the conduct of administrative proceed-
-------
836 LEGAL COMPILATION—EADIATION
ings." If the Commission is to consider potential antitrust
situations as part of its licensing process, as specifically provided
for in the bill, it will be necessary as a practical matter that the
Commission be authorized to have such expertise on the boards as
is desirable in relation to the issues. The proposed revision would
permit two of the three members of the board to have "such tech-
nical or other qualifications as the Commission deems appropriate
to the issues to be decided."
The committee believes that the flexibility that would be pro-
vided by the proposed amendment may well turn out to be useful
in connection with other matters within the orbit of the Commis-
sion's licensing process.
The committee expects and will urge the Commission to make
every reasonable effort to deal with the potential antitrust feature
under subsection 105c. of the bill fully but expeditiously. Clearly,
a separate board or boards should be utilized in the implementa-
tion of paragraphs (5) and (6) of subsection 105c. The com-
mittee anticipates that all the functions contemplated by these
paragraphs woujd be carried
[p. 15]
out before the radiological health and safety review and deter-
mination process is completed, so that the entire licensing proce-
dure is not further extended in time by reason of the added
antitrust review function.
PART II
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
In 1959, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 was amended by the
addition of section 274 which recognized the interests of the States
in the peaceful uses of atomic energy and provided for programs of
cooperation between the States and the Commission. Subsection
274h statutorily established a "Federal Radiation Council, consist-
ing of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Chair-
man of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Secretary of Defense,
the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, or their des-
ignees, and such other members as shall be appointed by the
President". The Council was required to consult with "qualified
scientists and experts in radiation matters, including the President
of the National Academy of Sciences, the Chairman of the Na-
tional Committee on Radiation Protection and Measurements, and
qualified experts" in other fields, and to advise the President "with
respect to radiation matters, directly or indirectly affecting health,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 837
including guidance for all Federal agencies in the formulation of
radiation standards . . ."
In recommending the inclusion of this feature in section 274, the
Committee considered that thereby basic radiation protection
guides would be arrived at pursuant to high scientific standards,
and that a continuing, comprehensive review process by the Coun-
cil would keep it thoroughly abreast of all pertinent scientific in-
formation and alert to any need to revise its radiation protection
guides. The Committee believed that the Council should function
as a statutory body because of its important responsibilities,
rather than simply as an arm of the executive branch which it had
theretofore been.1
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
The Federal Radiation Council recommended radiation protec-
tion guides, and these guides have been followed by the AEC and
other Government agencies. Based on all the information avail-
able to this committee, and on the advice furnished to this commit-
tee by outstanding scientists whose opinions are highly regarded
by their peers and scientific associates, the guides that constitute
the bases for AEC's radiation protection standards are valid and
appropriate from radiological health and safety standpoints.
However, the committee has come to appreciate the fact that the
members of the Federal Radiation Council are really too occupied
with the principal activities of their respective departments and
agencies, and with duties imposed by membership on other com-
mittees, to devote their continuing attention to the functions of the
Council as envisioned by the committee when it recommended the
inclusion in the act of subsection 274h. in 1959.
On March 20, 1970, the Chairman of the Joint Committee wrote
the following letter to the Federal Radiation Council:
[p. 16]
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY,
Washington, B.C., March L'O, 1970.
Hon. ROBERT H. PINCH,
Chairman, Federal Radiation Council,
Federal Office Building, No. 7, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN : On January 28, 1970, you had occasion to write to
Senator Muskie, chairman of the Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution
of the Public Works Committee, relative to testimony of Dr. Gofman and Dr.
Tamplin before that subcommittee. Also on January 28, 1970, Dr. John
Gofman appeared as a witness before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
1 Executive Order No. 10831, dated August 17, 1959.
-------
838 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
in the course of this committee's hearings on the environmental effects of pro-
ducing electric power, and he presented written testimony in support of his
contention that there should be an immediate ten-fold reduction in the Federal
Radiation Council guidelines for radiation exposure to the population at large.
Dr. Gofman's written material consisted of nine documents which are listed
on the attachment to this letter; he stated that the material was being furnished
concurrently to the Federal Radiation Council for review.
I understand from your letter to Senator Muskie that as Chairman of the
FRC you have recommended that the Council undertake a complete review of
the present FRC guidelines in the light of all available scientific information.
As chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, I thoroughly believe
in the advisability of a full-scale review. My belief is not motivated by the
views of Dr. Gofman and Tamplin; rather, it has seemed to me that the effective
discharge of FRC's responsibilities under section 274h. of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, should entail thorough periodic reviews to take ad-
vantage of factual and meaningfully evidentiary developments. My own
thought is that a complete reexamination should, as a minimum, be conducted
every 5 years. FRC's knowledgeable conclusions, following such a review
and evaluation on a sound scientific basis, should serve to reinforce general
confidence in the integrity of FRC's performance of its statutory duties, as well
as to help Federal agencies and the public who will be affected by the guidelines.
I would expect that such reviews of radiation protection guidelines will be
conducted in accordance with the highest procedural and substantive standards
of true scientific inquiry.
Please let this committee know what the FRC's plans are in regard to the
review of the guidelines for radiation protection. Your cooperation in this
important matter is appreciated.
I am sending a copy of this letter to the other members of the Council.
Sincerely yours,
CHET HOLIFIELD, Chairman.
FRC's reply was to the effect that a review of the guidelines was
in progress. The review has apparently not yet been completed.
The committee firmly believes that the time has come to abolish
the Federal Radiation Council and to substitute for the present
text of subsection 274 h. of the Atomic Energy Act new, detailed
requirements
[P. 17]
in regard to the need for a continuing, comprehensive review
of radiation protection standards and the bases therefor.
The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measure-
ments, known in 1959 when subsection 274 h. was enacted
into law as the National Committee on Radiation Protection and
Measurements, and thereafter specially recognized by the Con-
gress under its revised name, has informally advised the committee
that it would be willing to enter into a contractual arrangement
with a Government agency to carry out the functions specified in
the revised provisions of subsection 274 h. in the bill. These func-
tions would include (i) the conduct by the NCRPM of a full-scale
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 839
review of the radiation protection guides presently in effect by
virtue of the recommendations of the FRC, and of all available
scientific information; (ii) the preparation and submittal by the
NCRPM to the executive branch and to the Congress, by December
31, 1970, of its first complete report of its review activities, includ-
ing its recommendations respecting basic radiation protection
standards; (iii) the submittal by the NCRPM of annual, and other,
reports thereafter; and (iv) the prompt publication of these re-
ports by a Government agency or by the NCRPM.
The revised subsection 274 h. also calls for an arrangement with
the National Academy of Sciences for a comprehensive and con-
tinuing review of the biological effects of radiation on man and the
ecology. The work of the Academy would be coordinated with the
functions of the NCRPM. The committee has been informally ad-
vised by the Academy that it would be agreeable to entering into a
contractual arrangement with a Government agency to perform
the required service.
The committee visualizes that the contracts may be for an ex-
tended period of years, perhaps about 5 years subject to renewal
by mutual agreement of the parties, and on a cost basis subject to
the availability of appropriations.
These two unique and preeminent scientific bodies are the most
knowledgable collection of experts in the fields of radiation and
effects of radiation. The arrangements would require that their
work be carried out in accordance with high substantive and pro-
cedural standards of sound scientific investigation and findings.
Their publicized reports and findings should create and maintain
the most solid and credible foundation for basic radiation protec-
tion standards that can be realistically achieved. (See Appendix.)
The committee intends that under the arrangements the
NCRPM and the NAS will concern themselves essentially with in-
formation and matters pertaining to the "hard" sciences, as dis-
tinguished from sociological or "soft" science considerations. The
latter considerations, including the sociological aspects of such
factors as "risk-benefit," would be identified and dealt with by a
Government agency having authority to establish radiation pro-
tection standards. Under the revised subsection 274 h., all of these
matters pertaining to basic radiation protection standards perti-
nent to the health and safety aspects of exposure to radioactivity
resulting from the development, use or control of atomic energy
would be promptly publicized and reported to the Joint Committee
and made available to the public.
The contracting Government agency may, in the discretion of
the President, be the Environmental Protection Agency recently
-------
840 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
proposed by the President in Reorganization Plan No. 3—should
this plan come
[p. 18]
into effect pursuant to law—or the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion, or another Government agency or agencies; any Government
agency or agencies designated by the President may administer
the contractual arrangements.
PART III
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Ten years after the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 became law, the
Joint Committee recommended, and there was enacted into law,
the Private Ownership of Special Nuclear Materials Act (Public
Law 88-489, Aug. 26, 1964). For the first time persons were per-
mitted to own special nuclear material; the Commission was re-
quired to phase out its distribution of such material by lease.
In the processing and refining chain from raw material to the
enriched uranium used as a fuel for nuclear powerplants, the
AEC's gaseous diffusion plants at Oak Ridge, Tenn., Paducah, Ky.,
and Portsmouth, Ohio, are still the exclusive provider of toll en-
riching services. The Private Ownership of Special Nuclear Ma-
terials Act authorized the Commission to enter into arrangements
for the furnishing of enrichment services to domestic licensees and
to others abroad; the applicable provisions were set forth in sub-
section 161 v., as follows:
v. (A) enter into contracts with persons licensed under
sections 53, 63, 103 or 104 for such periods of time as the
Commission may deem necessary or desirable to provide, after
December 31, 1968, for the producing or enriching of special
nuclear material in facilities owned by the Commission; and
(B) enter into contracts to provide, after December 31,
1968, for the producing or enriching of special nuclear mate-
rial in facilities owned by the Commission in accordance with
and within the period of an agreement for cooperation ar-
ranged pursuant to section 123 while comparable services are
made available pursuant to paragraph (A) of this subsection:
Provided, That (i) prices for services under paragraph (A)
of this subsection shall be established on a nondiscriminatory
basis; (ii) prices for services under paragraph (B) of this
subsection shall be no less than prices under paragraph (A)
of this subsection; and (iii) any prices established under this
subsection shall be on a basis which will provide reasonable
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 841
compensation to the Government: And provided further, That
the Commission, to the extent necessary to assure the main-
tenance of a viable domestic uranium industry, shall not offer
such services for source or special nuclear materials of foreign
origin intended for use in a utilization facility within or under
the jurisdiction of the United States. The Commission shall
establish criteria in writing setting forth the terms and con-
ditions under which services provided under this subsection
shall be made available including the extent to which such
services will be made available for source or special nuclear
material of foreign origin intended for use in a utilization
facility within or under the jurisdiction of the United States:
[p. 19]
Provided, That before the Commission establishes such cri-
teria, the proposed criteria shall be submitted to the Joint
Committee, and a period of forty-five days shall elapse while
Congress is in session (in computing the forty-five days there
shall be excluded the days in which either House is not in
session because of adjournment for more than three days)
unless the Joint Committee by resolution in writing waives
the conditions of, or all or any portion of, such forty-five-day
period.
Pursuant to the requirement of this subsection, proposed criteria
were submitted by the Commission in June 1966, and following ex-
tensive hearings by the committee were adopted on December 23,
1966. Among other things, these criteria set forth the basis for
the price to be charged for the enrichment services and specified a
ceiling price of $30 per separative work unit; the ceiling price was
made subject to escalation for power and labor costs.
COMMITTEE COMMENTS
On November 10, 1969, the President announced that he had
asked the AEC to operate its diffusion plants as a separate or-
ganizational entity within the AEC "in a manner which ap-
proaches more closely a commercial enterprise." The White House
release stated that the President's decision was "based on his belief
that the Federal Government's responsibility for uranium enrich-
ment as the owner-operator of the Nation's only enrichment facil-
ities eventually should be ended." It further stated that the
President would not seek legislation at this time to authorize sale
of the facilities to private industry.
The chairman of the Joint Committee issued a statement the
-------
842 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
same day in response to the release from the White House. In-
cluded in his comments were the following remarks:
Before the Congress would even consider taking such a
major step, there isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that it
would want to put any such proposal under a microscope in
order to assure the protection of the public interest.
I want to assure interested members of the public that any
significant proposed changes in ownership of the plants will
be the subject of full, complete, and comprehensive Joint
Committee public hearings to consider all of the factors in-
volved before the legislative branch approves, disapproves,
or modifies any such proposals.
It was clear then, as it is now, that the transfer of the gaseous
diffusion plants to private ownership cannot be legally effected
without an enabling statute. The President has not as yet pro-
posed any legislation to accomplish his intended purpose.
On June 11, 1970, the Commission submitted to the Joint Com-
mittee a proposed amendment to the existing criteria for pricing
enriching services and a proposed increase in the price per sep-
arative work unit. The proposed amendment to the criteria was
submitted pursuant to the requirement in subsection 161 v. that
before the Commission establishes criteria—including revisions to
criteria theretofore estab-
[p. 20]
lished—"the proposed criteria shall be submitted to the Joint
Committee and a period of 45 days shall elapse while Congress is
in session * * * unless the Joint Committee, by resolution in writing
waives the conditions of * * * such 45-day period." The proposed
increase in price would change the price of a separative work unit
from $26 to $28.70. Proposed increases in price within duly
established criteria are not required by subsection 161 v. to be
submitted to the Joint Committee for review.
The amendment to the criteria proposed by the Commission
would change the basis for computing the charge for separative
work from one of cost recovery by AEC to a basis which, according
to the AEC, would be more closely comparable to a commercial op-
eration. Essentially, as set forth in the amendment to the criteria,
the new basis for pricing would consist of the following:
In recognition of the commercial nature of the primary
market to be served, and of the fact that the existing facilities
were constructed primarily for noncommercial markets,
AEC's charge for enriching services will be established at the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 843
level estimated to be equivalent to the charge for separative
work performed in new uranium enrichment facilities de-
signed, constructed, and operated primarily to meet com-
mercial markets, using debt-equity ratios, rates of return on
investment, and appropriate allowances for Federal corporate
income taxes, State and local taxes and insurance deemed
by the Commission to be appropriate for a private industrial
enriching enterprise.
AEC will review periodically the charge for enriching serv-
ices on the basis of (a) updated projections of the cost of
separative work produced in a new enriching plant and (6)
the cost of money in the private sector of the economy. As
a result of such reviews, AEC will make any appropriate re-
visions in the charge for enriching services in accordance with
(the foregoing basis but within the limitations of the ceiling
price of $30 plus escalation for the cost of power and labor).
Public hearings were held by the Joint Committee on June 16
and 17, 1970, to consider the AEC submittal of amended criteria.
On June 16, testimony was received from the following witnesses:
Commissioner Wilfrid E. Johnson
Commissioner James T. Eamey
Commissioner Theos J. Thompson
Joseph F. Hennessey, General Counsel
John P. Abbadessa, Controller
On June 17, representatives of the General Accounting Office
appeared and provided preliminary views on the salient aspects of
the AEC submittal.
These representatives were:
Dean K. Crowther, Assistant Director, Civil Division (AEC
Audit)
Daniel F. Stanton, supervisory auditor
Thomas P. McCormick, supervisory auditor
[p. 21]
Also, on July 16, an executive hearing was held by the committee
to receive testimony from the AEC on the classified aspects of the
gas centrifuge process for uranium enrichment.
The public hearings are printed in the Joint Committee publica-
tion entitled "Uranium Enrichment Pricing Criteria—Hearings
June 16 and 17, 1970." This print also contains the comments of
a number of individuals and companies in the nuclear industry;
the committee invited the expression of views by interested people
and organizations.
The criteria that the Commission had adopted in December 1966,
-------
844 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
and which have been in use since, had been carefully reviewed by
the General Accounting Office and by the Joint Committee before
they were established.' These criteria accurately implemented the
fundamental concept apparent during the 1964 hearings - preced-
ing the enactment into law of subsection 161 v. and during the
1966 hearings ' prior to the establishment of the criteria, and de-
scribed in the Joint Committee's report accompanying the Private
Ownership Act.3 This fundamental concept was that the price to
be charged by the AEC should be based on the recovery of ap-
propriate Government costs averaged over a period of years in
order to provide a stable pricing situation. Additionally, the leg-
islative background discloses the following underlying intent,
which GAO in its July 17, 1970, report to the Joint Committee
correctly describes as follows:
The legislative history of this subsection 161 v. shows an
intent to fix a charge based generally upon the recovery of the
Government's costs as stated on page 2 of the House Report
1702. The only concern of the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy was that the reduction or possible elimination of mil-
itary needs for enriched uranium might cause the prices re-
quired to recover costs to increase so significantly that the
development of atomic power would be impeded. The state-
ments on page 18 of the House report with respect to flexi-
bility and consideration of the national interest are directed
specifically and solely to this particular problem.
In our opinion, the statements concerning flexibility and
national interest would indicate that they relate only to the
recovery of less-than-full costs and merely create one excep-
tion to the earlier positive statement on page 2 of the report
that the charge for enriching uranium will be "based gen-
erally upon the cost of doing necessary processing or separa-
tive work in the Government's diffusion plants." We think
the statement on page 2 reasonably could be interpreted as
reflecting an intent to preclude the setting of prices so as to
recover more than the Government's full costs over a period of
time. * '* *
The criteria established by the Commission in December 1966
complied with the provisions and the spirit of subsection 161 v. of
1 "Uranium Enrichment Services Criteria and Related Matters", JGAE hearings, 89th Cong.,
second sess., August 1966.
2 "Private Ownership of Special Nuclear Materials, 1964", JCAE hearings, 88th Cong., second
sess., June 1964.
3 Senate Report No. 1325, House Report No. 1702, 88th Cong., second sess., dated August 5,
1964.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 845
the Atomic Energy Act. The Commission proposed to implement
the
[p. 22]
Government cost factors in the criteria by employing an av-
eraging technique to be applicable for the period 1966 through
1975. The Commission's criteria also provided (par. 5(d)) for a
ceiling price of $30 subject only to escalation for the costs of elec-
tric power and labor. In establishing the price the AEC planned
to utilize a contingency factor to provide for risks of operation and
estimates. In regard to the Commission's plan the GAO, in a 1966
report to the Joint Committee, expressed the view that:
* * * the provisions having an effect on pricing afford a
reasonable basis for recovering, over a long term of operation,
the Government's cost of furnishing enrichment services
* * * we believe that the proposed ceiling charge is adequate
to permit recovery of appropriate Government costs projected
over a number of years.
Following further study and computations, the AEC announced
on September 21, 1967, that the price it would charge for enriching
services would be $26 per separative work unit, subject to change
on 6 months' notice but within the guaranteed $30 ceiling, plus the
escalation, factor. In reply to the specific request of the Joint
Committee, the GAO stated in a letter report of September 25,
1967, to the Joint Committee that the announced $26 price was
"adequate to permit recovery of appropriate Government costs
projected over a number of years and is consistent with the Com-
mission's criteria published in the Federal Register on December
23, 1966." The GAO also commented as follows:
Further, considering that the charge also provides a margin
for contingencies, we do not see a basis for asserting that a
subsidy is being provided to the domestic or foreign nuclear
industries, or any portion thereof.
Thus, the criteria and the implementing price fully accorded
with the legislative intent underlying the provisions of subsection
161 v. of the Atomic Energy Act.
As soon as the Joint Committee received AEC's proposed
amendment to the criteria on June 11, 1970, it requested the Gen-
eral Accounting Office to subject the submittal to a very careful
review. The Report to the Joint Committee by the Comptroller
General on July 17, 1970, contains the results of the GAO review.
The report states that based on GAO's interpretation of the leg-
islative history of subsection 161 v. the proposed amendment to the
-------
846 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
basis for pricing does not appear to be consistent with the inten-
tion of the Congress. Among other things, GAO states:
Because of the questionable need for, and the applicability
of, the proposed criteria and GAO doubts as to its clear au-
thorization, GAO does not believe the proposed criteria should
be adopted without further action by the Congress.
In the judgment of the Joint Committee, the recently proposed
changes to the basis for pricing enriching services are contrary to
law because they are clearly inconsistent with the intent of the
Congress. The purpose of 161 v. was to provide for reasonable
compensation to the Government on the basis of the recovery of
appropriate Government costs averaged over a period of years.
The new criteria scrap this basis. The substitute so-called criteria
are composed of a number of
[p. 23]
ambiguous factors related to a fancifully conceived, privately
owned plant of the future. The excessive vagueness of the new
criteria also contravene the will of the Congress because under
the statute proposed criteria are required to be submitted to the
Joint Committee for review and the intent was to give the Con-
gress the opportunity to review something that had some definite
meaning or predictable range of consequences.
With the new so-called criteria vague enough to be essentially
meaningless, the proposed new price of $28.70 may, under the re-
vised criteria, be increased at any time or times without further
revisions to the criteria requiring submittal to the committee.
Such increases would apparently be motivated by the desire to
increase potential enrichment revenues sufficiently to make private
investment in the existing or new enriching plants more attractive
-—at the expense of the fuel buyer and the public. And, when it
suits the AEC, any additional amendment to the criteria could
readily be proposed to raise the ceiling price of $30; such a pro-
posal could easily be justified if the presently proposed criteria
are established, on the ground that the $30 factor relates to the
Government's costs whereas the principal basis for pricing does
not. The $30 ceiling factor would doubtlessly only temporarily be
endured; once the major hurdle represented by a pricing system
based on the recovery of the Government's cost is surmounted, the
road ahead to major price increases would be a clear one.
Under the purview of subsection 161 v. as intended by the Con-
gress, and under the criteria in effect since 1966—which would
continue in effect under the revision proposed in the bill—any sub-
mittal of revised criteria to raise the $30 ceiling would have to be
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 847
supported by a showing of substantial increase in Government
costs, aside from power and labor costs which are now covered by
escalation factors.
Aside from the question of legality, in the Committee's judgment
it is unnecessary and unwise to advance a new and ambiguous for-
mula for pricing nuclear enriching services as a precedent to sell-
ing the Government-owned diffusion plants. Hypothetical
estimates of prices under commercial-type operation can be made
independently of a change in the present statutory basis for com-
puting the enrichment services charge. The GAO noted that what
the AEC had recommended by way of criteria changes was not
essential to the fundamental policy—commercial-like operation—
which it was intended to implement. The report stated:
We believe that, with respect to the new criteria providing
for operating and cost experience on a commercial basis that
will assist private industry in making decisions regarding the
possible transfer to private industry of enrichment plants,
data concerning the projected operation of a conceptual plant
can be accumulated with equal facility under either [existing
or proposed] criteria.
AEC testified in June that Government accounting practices for
the gaseous diffusion plants would continue to be performed in the
usual Government cost-accounting mode and comparison with the
new criteria would be through supplementing financial statements
to yield "commercial" pricing data. It is obvious that so-called
commercial statistics are a function of accounting techniques and,
however useful they may be, there is no basis for the argument
that the development
[p. 24]
of hypothetical cost factors would justify modification of the
entire pricing structure.
Under the criteria in effect since 1966, which are consistent with
the letter and spirit of subsection 161 v., the AEC, in order to
smooth out unnecessary fluctuations, computed cost data over a
10-year period-—1966 to 1975. Such 10-year period represented
a "reasonable period of time" within the intent of the Congress as
apparent from the legislative history of subsection 161 v. Such
period, together with the allocation of costs to standby and excess
capacity, were approved by the GAO in 1966 and 1967 as con-
sistent with the criteria and as adequate to assure recovery of
Government costs. In its current report GAO expresses the
opinion that a price increase may be warranted. The Committee
-------
848 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
is agreeable to an appropriate increase in price under the criteria
established and in use since 1966.
The Joint Committee believes it advisable for the Commission,
within the context of the applicable criteria, to reassess the enrich-
ment services charge at such fixed intervals and utilizing such
averaging periods as, in the opinion of the Commission, are rea-
sonably calculated to assure recovery of appropriate Government
costs, with relative price stability, and the contingency factors
necessary to provide for cost variations.
The Joint Committee is deeply concerned about the Commis-
sion's presently proposed amendment to the criteria. It consti-
tutes a deliberate effort to thwart the will of Congress and it
would accelerate the inflationary trend in the price of all other
fuels. Heretofore, the stable pricing system for enriching ura-
nium has represented a steadying influence against the upward
fluctuations in the prices of other fuels.
The bill would amend subsection 161 v. to support and affirm
with greater clarity the intention of the Congress as correctly dis-
cerned by the GAO in its July 17, 1970, report. The Committee
expects that this reiteration of congressional intent would preclude
any further attempt to deviate from the purpose of the statute.
Under the clarified version of subsection 161 v., it is intended
that the criteria in effect since 1966 will continue to be in effect
unless and until the Commission proposes revisions thereto that
conform to the requirements of the statute and submits them to the
Committee for the 45-day review period. The Committee recom-
mends that the Commission consult with the General Accounting
Office in regard to any such proposed revisions that it may deem
desirable. The Joint Committee would be kept fully informed,
and any report furnished the Commission by the GAO would also
be made available to the Committee.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1 of the bill amends paragraph (4) of subsection 31 a. of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, which now reads as
follows:
(4) utilization of special nuclear material, atomic energy,
and radioactive material and processes entailed in the utiliza-
tion or production of atomic energy or such material for all
other purposes, including industrial uses, the generation of
[p. 25]
usable energy, and the demonstration of the practical value of
utilization or production facilities for industrial or commercial
purposes; and (italic added)
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 849
The italicized portions would be re-worded to accord with the sub-
sequent provisions of the bill respecting the elimination of the con-
cept of a finding of "practical value" and concerning the licensing
of utilization and production facilities for industrial or commercial
purposes. The phrase "including industrial uses" would be revised
to "including industrial or commercial uses" and the phrase "the
demonstration of the practical value of utilization or production
facilities for industrial or commercial purposes" would be changed
to "the demonstration of advances on the commercial or industrial
application of atomic energy." These changes are essentially tech-
nical in nature; they do not effect any major substantive alteration
of subsection 31 a. of the Act.
Section 2 of the bill amends the second sentence of section 56 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, which now provides:
The Commission shall also establish for such periods of
time as it may deem necessary but not to exceed ten years
as to any such period, guaranteed purchase prices for uranium
enriched in the isotope 233 produced in a nuclear reactor by'
a person licensed under section 104 and delivered to the Com-
mission within the period of the guarantee. (Italic added.)
The italicized phrase would be revised to "under section 103 or
section 104". With respect to guaranteed purchase prices for
U233, which the Commission has recently established for a 5-year
period, it is appropriate and advisable that these apply to licensed
nuclear facilities, including, as provided for in the bill, those
licensed under section 103.
Section 3 of the bill amends section 102 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, to eliminate the requirement for a finding
by the Commission "that any type of utilization or production
facility has been sufficiently developed to be of practical value for
industrial or commercial purposes" as a condition precedent to the
"commercial" licensing of such type of facility under section 103.
Under the revised section 102, all utilization and production fa-
cilities for industrial or commercial purposes, with two exceptions,
would be subject to licensing under section 103. The two excep-
tions would be (1) facilities constructed or operated under an
arrangement with the Commission entered into under the cooper-
ative power reactor demonstration program, unless the applicable
law required licensing under section 103, and (ii) facilities covered
by a subsection 104b. construction permit or operating license
before and at the time the bill is enacted into law. In regard to
(i), the bases for arrangements under the cooperative power re-
actor demonstration program, which program has for many years
-------
850 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
been separately covered in the AEC's authorization acts, are care-
fully reviewed by this committee. Should it be desirable in the
case of any contemplated future cooperative demonstration proj-
ect to require that the nuclear facility involved be licensed
under section 103 instead of subsection 104b., this could be done
in the enabling statute. In regard to (ii), the committee believes
it would impose an unnecessary hardship on subsection 104b.
[p. 26J
licensees to compel them to convert their permits to section 103
licenses; the matter of potential antitrust review of certain sub-
section 104 licenses is specifically dealt with in section 6 of the bill,
and is discussed below, and it appears to the committee that no
useful purpose could be served by compelling any conversion to
section 103. The committee here visualizes that amendments, as
such, to an existing subsection 104b. license will not affect the
exception to section 103 licensing. If, however, the facility is to
be modified to such a degree as to constitute a new or substantially
different facility, as provided in a regulation or order issued by
the Commission, the exception to section 103 licensing is not in-
tended to be applicable to the necessary license amendment.
Aside from these two exception categories—demonstration facil-
ities under the cooperative power reactor demonstration program
and previously licensed 104b. facilities—any license for a utiliza-
tion or production facility for industrial or commercial licenses
would be issued under section 103, unless some future law other-
wise specifically provides.
Section 4 of the bill amends the first sentence of subsection 103 a.
of the Act which now reads as follows:
During the hearings pertaining to this legislation there was a
suggestion that there ought to be a clearer indication of Congres-
sional intent that section 272 of the Atomic Energy Act did not
constitute a modification of the Federal Power Act. The Joint
Committee very carefully considered this item and concluded that
the legislative history of section 272 indicated quite clearly that
the committee and the Congress had not intended thereby to mod-
ify or affect in any way the provisions of the Federal Power Act.
The committee unanimously reconfirms this intention. In effect
section 272 should be read as if the clause "to the extent therein
provided" appeared at the end of the text.
Subsequent to a finding by the Commission as required in,
section 102, the Commission may issue licenses to transfer or
receive in interstate commerce, manufacture, produce, trans-
fer, acquire, possess, use, import, or export under the terms of
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 851
an agreement for cooperation arranged pursuant to section
123, such type of utilization or production facility. (Italics
added.)
The italicized clause would be deleted, since the requirement for a
"practical value" finding would be eliminated. The concluding
clause "such type of utilization or production facility" would be
changed to "utilization or production facilities for industrial or
commercial purposes." The revised version would provide for the
issuance to persons of "commercial" licenses with respect to "utili-
zation and production facilities for industrial or commercial
purposes."
Section 5 of the bill would revise subsection 104 b. of the act to
authorize the issuance of licenses under that subsection for utiliza-
tion or production facilities for industrial or commercial purposes
(i) where specifically authorized by law, or (ii) where the facility
is constructed or operated under an arrangement with the Com-
mission entered into under the cooperative power reactor demon-
stration program, and the applicable statutory authorization does
not require licensing under section 103, or (iii) where the facility
was theretofore licensed under subsection 104 b.
[p. 27]
In revising the text of subsection 104 b., the committee has re-
tained the present requirement that "the Commission shall impose
the minimum amount of such regulations and terms of license as
will permit the Commission to fulfill its obligations under the Act,"
but deleted the balance of the present text because subsection 104
b. licenses would not be convertible to section 103 licenses under
the bill, and because there is no longer any need to provide for
priority of licenses "to those activities which will, in the opinion
of the Commission, lead to major advances in the application of
atomic energy for industrial or commercial purposes."
In retaining the present language respecting the imposition of
the minimum amount of regulations and terms of license, the
committee wishes to emphasize that the only purpose here was to
reiterate, not to make new law; thus, requirements of applicable
laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(Public Law 91-190) and the Water Quality Improvement Act of
1970 (Public Law 91-224), enacted subsequent to the Atomic En-
ergy Act of 1954, remain unaffected by the reiteration of this
feature of the present provisions of subsection 104 b.
The bill does not affect in any way subsections 104 a., 104 c., or
104 d., or the caption of section 104, "Medical Therapy and Re-
search and Development."
-------
852 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
The committee is aware that university-licensees under sub-
section 104 c., and other licensees under subsections 104 a. or
104 c., sometimes use these reactors for industrial or commercial
purposes. It is the intention of the committee that such insub-
stantial use not affect licensing under section 104; however, should
the Commission find that any facility so licensed is being used
substantially for industrial or commercial purposes, then the Com-
mission shall determine whether such use is sufficiently substantial
to entail licensing under section 103.
Section 6 of the bill clarifies and revises subsection 105 c. of the
act. The bill does not affect in any way the important features
contained in the provisions of subsections 105 a. and 105 b. of the
1954 act. These subsections remain separate, distinct and wholly
unaffected by the proposed revised subsection 105 c. For example,
the Attorney General's advice under the new subsection 105 c., and
the participation by the Attorney General or his designee in the
proceedings referred to in paragraph (5) of the subsection, would
be completely separate and apart from any actions the Attorney
General may deem advisable in relation to the antitrust laws re-
ferred to in subsection 105 a. Also, under paragraph (1) of the
new subsection 105 c., the Attorney General may, in his discretion,
should he consider that his advice might prejudice planned actions
under the antitrust laws referred to in subsection 105 a., or for
any other reason, render no advice to the Commission.
Paragraph (1) of revised subsection 105 c., requires the Com-
mission promptly to transmit to the Attorney General a copy of
any license application to construct or operate a utilization or
production facility under section 103. Paragraph (1) also re-
quires the Commission promptly to transmit to the Attorney Gen-
eral written requests for potential antitrust review which are
made by any persons who intervened, or who sought by timely
written notice to the Commission to intervene, in the construction
permit proceeding for a facility licensed under subsection 104 b.
prior to the enactment of the bill into law.
[p. 28]
The Attorney General would have "a reasonable time, but in no
event to exceed 180 days after receiving a copy of such application
or written request" to "render such advice to the Commission as
he determines to be appropriate in regard to the finding to be made
by the Commission" with respect to antitrust considerations. The
committee expects full and expeditious cooperation by the appli-
cant, the Commission and the Attorney General. To facilitate an
early review by the Attorney General, the committee suggests that,
promptly upon enactment into law of this bill, the Commission
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 853
and the Attorney General work out a suitable understanding in
regard to the nature of the information the Attorney General
would wish to have at the outset; the Commission could then plan
to obtain the information from the applicant at the same time that
the application is submitted to the Commission.
The advice which the Attorney General may provide would be
advice which he "determines to be appropriate in regard to the
finding to be made by the Commission." The advice need not nec-
essarily fall within the orbit of the present clause "tend to create
or maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws." If
the Attorney General deems it to be appropriate, he need not
render any advice, in which case he should so inform the Com-
mission. If he renders advice, paragraph (1) requires that it in-
clude "an explanatory statement as to the reasons or basis there-
for"; this requirement is only fair and reasonable, and it should
help facilitate and expedite the subsequent procedure.
Paragraph (2) of revised subsection 105 c. provides that the
potential antitrust review shall not apply to an application for a
license to operate a utilization or production facility for which a
construction permit was issued under section 103 "unless the Com-
mission determines such review is advisable on the ground that
significant changes have occurred in the licensee's activities or
proposed activities subsequent to the previous review by the At-
torney General and the Commission under this subsection in con-
nection with the construction permit for the facility." The
committee sees no sense in two such exercises unless there have
been significant intervening changes. The committee expects that
the Commission will consult with the Attorney General in regard
to its determination respecting significant changes. The term
"significant changes" refers to the licensee's activities or proposed
activities; the committee considers that it would be unfair to pena-
lize a licensee for significant changes not caused by the licensee
or for which the licensee could not reasonably be held responsible
or answerable.
The committee recognizes that applications may be amended
from time to time, that there may be applications to extend or re-
view a license, and also that the form of an application for a
construction permit may be such that, from the applicant's stand-
point, it ultimately ripens into the application for an operating
license. The phrases "any license application", "an application for
a license", and "any application" as used in the clarified and re-
vised subsection 105 c. refer to the initial application for a con-
struction permit, the initial application for operating license, or
the initial application for a modification which would constitute a
-------
854 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
new or substantially different facility, as the case may be, as
determined by the Commission. The phrases do not include, for
purposes of triggering subsection 105 c., other applications which
may be filed during the licensing process.
[p. 29]
Paragraph (3) provides that with respect to any Commission
permit issued under subsection 104 b. before enactment of the bill
into law, any person who intervened or who sought by timely
written notice to the Commission to intervene in the construction
permit proceeding to raise the prelicensing antitrust issue will
have the right to obtain an antitrust review under this subsection;
to do this, such person must make a written request to the Com-
mission within 25 days after the date of initial Commission publi-
cation in the Federal Register of notice of the filing of an
application for an operating license for the facility or the date of
enactment into law of this subsection, whichever is later. It is the
committee's intent that such potentially eligible intervenors must
be persons who could have qualified as intervenors under the
Commission's rules at the time of the initial attempt to intervene
if prelicensing antitrust review were then properly for Commission
consideration.
Paragraph (4) provides that, upon the request of the Attorney
General, the Commission shall furnish or cause to be furnished
"such information as the Attorney General determines to be ap-
propriate" for the advice he is to give. The committee expects that
the Commission will make every reasonable effort to provide in-
formation sought by the Attorney General.
There is an important aspect that the committee considers must
be recognized and especially dealt with in a prudent and respon-
sible manner, and that is the matter of proprietary information or
data. The system in subsection 105 c. as in connection with other
aspects of the licensing procedure, should be such as to provide
reasonable safeguards against any leaks or unwarranted dissem-
ination of information or data of a proprietary nature provided by
or in behalf of the applicant, and whether or not the applicant
is the proprietor.
Paragraph (5) requires that the Commission promptly publish
in the Federal Register the advice it receives from the Attorney
General. It further provides that if the Attorney General "advises
that there may be adverse antitrust aspects and recommends that
there be a hearing" that the Attorney General or his designee may
participate as a party "in the proceedings thereafter held by the
Commission on such licensing matter in connection with the sub-
ject matter of his advice." Such proceedings must be held by the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 855
Commission if the Attorney General advises that there may be
adverse antitrust aspects and recommends a hearing. Also, if he
does not so advise and recommend, but antitrust issues are raised
by another in a manner according with the Commission's rules or
regulations, the Commission would be obliged to give such con-
sideration thereto as may be required by the Administrative Pro-
cedure Act and the Commission's rules or regulations. Paragraph
(5) requires that the Commission "give due consideration to the
advice received from the Attorney General and to such evidence
as may be provided during the proceedings in connection with such
subject matter." Whether or not the Attorney General appears as
a party, all advice and information provided by the Attorney
General that is utilized by the Commission in arriving at its finding
must be made a matter of record. Paragraph (5) further requires
that the Commission "make a finding as to whether the activities
under the license would create or maintain a situation inconsistent
with the antitrust laws as specified in subsection 105a." This
finding by the Commission is required only in those cases where
[P. 30]
the Attorney General advises there may be adverse antitrust
aspects or antitrust issues are raised by another in a manner ac-
cording with the Commission's rules and regulations.
With respect to the above finding, although the wrords "reason-
able probability" do not appear in the standard, the concept of
reasonable probability is intended to be a silent partner to the
factors in the standard. The standard must be considered in the
focus of reasonable probability—not certainty or possibility.
The standard pertains to the activities of the license applicant.
The activities of others, such as designers, fabricators, manu-
facturers, or suppliers of materials or services, who, under some
kind of direct or indirect contractual relationship may be furnish-
ing equipment, materials or services for the licensed facility would
not constitute "activities under the license" unless the license
applicant is culpably involved in activities of others that fall
within the ambit of the standard.
Paragraph (6) provides that if the Commission finds "the
activities under the license would create or maintain a situation
inconsistent with the antitrust laws as specified in subsection
105 a." that the Commission "shall also consider, in determining
whether the license should be issued or continued, such other
factors, including the need for power in the affected area, as the
Commission in its judgment deems necessary to protect the public
interest." On the basis of all its findings—the finding under
paragraph (5) and its findings under paragraph (6)—the Com-
-------
856 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
mission would have the authority "to issue or continue a license
as applied for, to refuse to issue a license, to rescind a license or
amend it, and to issue a license with such conditions as it deems
appropriate." While the Commission has the flexibility to con-
sider and weigh the various interests and objectives which may
be involved, the committee does not expect that an affirmative
finding under paragraph (5) would normally need to be overriden
by Commission findings and actions under paragraph (6). The
Committee believes that, except in an extraordinary situation,
Commission-imposed conditions should be able to eliminate the
concerns entailed in any affirmative finding under paragraph (5)
while, at the same time, accommodating the other public interest
concerns found pursuant to paragraph (6). Normally, the com-
mittee expects the Commission's actions under paragraph (5) and
(6) will harmonize both antitrust and such other public interest
considerations as may be involved. In connection with the range
of Commission discretion, the committee notes that pursuant to
subsection 105 a. the Commission may also take such licensing
action as it deems necessary in the event a licensee is found actu-
ally to have violated any of the antitrust laws. Of course, in the
event the Commission's findings under paragraph (5) is in the
negative, the Commission need not take any further action regard-
ing antitrust under subsection 105 c.
Paragraph (7) of revised subsection 105c. substantively carries
over from the present text the exception that the Commission
"with the approval of the Attorney General, may except from any
of the requirements of this subsection such classes or types of
licenses as the Commission may determine would not significantly
affect the applicant's activities under the antitrust laws."
Paragraph (8) endeavors to deal sensibly with those applica-
tions for a construction permit which, upon the enactment of the
bill into law,
[p. 31]
would have to be converted to applications under section 103. In
some cases, there might well be hardships caused by delays due to
the new requirement for a potential antitrust review under revised
subsection 105 c. Paragraph (8) would authorize the Commission,
after consultation with the Attorney General, to determine that
the public interest would be served by the issuance of a permit
containing conditions to assure that the results of a subsequently
conducted antitrust review would be given full force and effect.
Paragraph (8) similarly applies to applications for an operating
license in connection with which a written request for an antitrust
review is made as provided for in paragraph (3).
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 857
Section 7 of the bill effects a perfecting change in subsection
161 n. of the act to delete the reference to a finding of practical
value.
Section 8 of the bill changes several words in the first proviso of
subsection 161 v. to support the intention of the Congress when
this subsection was enacted into law. The clarified provision ex-
pressly indicates that the prices for enriching services "shall be on
a basis of recovery of the Government's costs over a reasonable
period of time." As the legislative history of this statute discloses,
and as the Comptroller General has discerned in his report to the
Joint Committee on July 17, 1970, it was intended that the price
to be charged by the AEC for toll enrichment should be based on
the recovery of appropriate Government costs averaged over a pe-
riod of years. Under the clarified version of subsection 161 v., the
committee intends that the criteria in effect since 1966 will con-
tinue to be in effect subject to any Commission proposed revisions
thereto that conform to the requirement of the statute and are sub-
mitted to the committee for its review. The committee expects
that the Commission will consult with the General Accounting Of-
fice in regard to any such proposed revisions.
Section 9 of the bill amends subsection 182 c. to delete the phrase
"within transmission distance" and to amend the general notice
provision.
Section 10 of the bill amends the first sentence of subsection
191 a. which now requires that of the three members of any Atomic
Safety and Licensing Board two members "shall be technically
qualified," and the third "shall be qualified in the conduct of ad-
ministrative proceedings". Section 10 would permit two members
to have "such technical or other qualifications as the Commission
deems appropriate to the issues to be decided"; the third member
would continue to be one "qualified in the conduct of administrative
proceedings."
Section 11 of the bill revises the present text of subsection 274 h.
to abolish the Federal Radiation Council and to provide for con-
tractual arrangements with the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements and with the National Academy of
Sciences. Under the revised text, any Government agency desig-
nated by the President for the purpose would be authorized and
directed to enter into and administer an arrangement with the
National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements for a
comprehensive and continuing review of basic radiation protection
standards, and the scientific bases therefor, pertinent to the health
and safety aspects of exposure to radioactivity resulting from the
development, use or control of atomic energy. Any Government
-------
858 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
agency designated by the President for the purpose would also be
authorized to enter into and administer an arrangement with the
National Academy of Sciences for a comprehensive and continuing
review of the biological
[p. 32]
effects of radiation on man and the ecology in order to obtain
information pertinent to basic radiation protection standards.
The revised subsection 274 h. specifies that the respective
arrangements shall require the conduct by the National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements and by the
National Academy of Sciences, respectively, of a number of func-
tions relative to the fields of radiation and the biological effects of
radiation. Under the arrangements the National* Committee on
Radiation Protection and Measurements and the National Acad-
emy of Sciences will concern themselves essentially with informa-
tion and matters relative to the "hard" sciences, as distinguished
from sociological or "soft" science considerations. The latter
considerations would be identified and dealt with by the Govern-
ment agency having authority to establish radiation protection
standards. All matters pertaining to basic radiation protection
standards pertinent to the health and safety aspects of exposure
to radioactivity resulting from the development, use or control of
atomic energy would be promptly reported to the Joint Committee.
The contracting Government agency may, in the discretion of the
President, be any Government agency or agencies; the contractual
arrangements may be administered by any Government agency or
agencies designated by the President.
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In accordance with clause (3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law recommended
by the bill accompanying this report are shown as follows (deleted
matter is shown in black brackets and new matter is printed in
italic):
PUBLIC LAW 83-703
[ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954 AS AMENDED]
"SEC. 31. RESEARCH ASSISTANCE.—
*******
"a. (4) utilization of special nuclear material, atomic energy,
and radioactive material and processes entailed in the utilization
or production of atomic energy or such material for all other pur-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 859
poses, including industrial or commercial uses, the generation of
usable energy, and the demonstration of [the practicable value of
utilization or production facilities for industrial or commercial
purposes] advances in the commercial or industrial application of
atomic energy; and
*******
"SEC. 56. GUARANTEED PURCHASE PRICES.—
"The Commission shall establish guaranteed purchase prices for
plutonium produced in a nuclear reactor by a person licensed under
section 104 and delivered to the Commission before January 1,
1971. The Commission shall also establish for such periods of
time as it may deem necessary, but not to exceed ten years as to
any such period, guaranteed purchase prices for uranium enriched
in the isotope 233 produced in a nuclear reactor by a person li-
censed under section 103 or
[p. 33]
section 104 and delivered to the Commission within the period
of the guarantee. Guaranteed purchase prices established un-
der the authority of this section shall not exceed the Com-
mission's determination of the estimated value of plutonium
or uranium enriched in the isotope 233 as fuel in nuclear
reactors, and such prices shall be established on a nondiscrimina-
tory basis: Provided, That the Commission is authorized to estab-
lish such guaranteed purchase prices only for such plutonium or
uranium enriched in the isotope 233 as the Commission shall deter-
mine is produced through the use of special nuclear material which
was leased or sold by the Commission pursuant to section 53.
"SEC. 102. [FINDING OF PRACTICAL VALUE] UTILIZATION AND
PRODUCTION FACILITIES FOR INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL
PURPOSES.—
[Whenever the Commission has made a finding in writing that
any type of utilization or production facility has been sufficiently
developed to be of practical value for industrial or commercial
purposes, the Commission may thereafter issue licenses for such
type of facility pursuant to section 103.]
"a. Except as provided in subsection b. and c., or otherwise spe-
cifically authorized by law, any license hereafter issued for a
utilization or production facility for industrial or commercial pur-
poses shall be issued pursuant to section 103.
"b. Any license hereafter issued for a utilization or production
facility for industrial or commercial purposes, the construction or
operation of which was licensed pursuant to subsection 104b. prior
-------
860 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
to enactment into law of this subsection, shall be issued under
subsection 104b.
"c. Any license for a utilization or production facility for in-
dustrial or commercial purposes constructed or operated under an
arrangement with the Commission entered into under the Co-
operative Power Reactor Demonstration Program shall, except as
othenvise specifically required by applicable law, be issued under
subsection 104-b."
"SEC. 103. COMMERCIAL LICENSES.—
"a. [Subsequent to a finding by the Commission as required in
section 102, the Commission may] The Commission is authorized to
issue licenses to persons applying therefor to transfer or receive in
interstate commerce, manufacture, produce, transfer, acquire,
possess, use, import, or export under the terms of an agreement
for cooperation arranged pursuant to section 123, [such type of
utilization or production facility] utilization or production facilities
for industrial or commercial purposes. Such licenses shall be is-
sued in accordance with the provisions of chapter 16 and subject
to such conditions as the Commission may by rule or regulation
establish to effectuate the purposes and provisions of this Act."
"SEC. 104. MEDICAL THERAPY AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOP-
MENT—
*******
"b. [The Commission is authorized to issue licenses to persons
applying therefor for utilization and production facilities involved
in
[p. 34]
the conduct of research and development activities leading to the
demonstration of the practical value of such facilities for indus-
trial or commercial purposes. In issuing licenses under this sub-
section, the Commission shall impose the minimum amount of such
regulations and terms of license as will permit the Commission to
fulfill its obligations under this Act to promote the common defense
and security and to protect the health and safety of the public
and will be compatible with the regulations and terms of license
which would apply in the event that a commercial license were
later to be issued pursuant to section 103 for that type of facility.
In issuing such licenses, priority shall be given to those activities
which will, in the opinion of the Commission, lead to major ad-
vances in the application of atomic energy for industrial or com-
mercial purposes.] As provided for in subsection 102 b. or 102 c.,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 861
or where specifically authorized by law, the Commission is au-
thorized to issue licenses under this subsection to persons applying
therefor for utilization and production facilities for industrial and
commercial purposes. In issuing licenses under this subsection,
the Commission shall impose the minimum amount of such regula-
tions and terms of license as ivill permit the Commission to fulfill
its obligations under this Act."
*******
"SEC. 105. ANTITRUST PROVISIONS.—
*******
"c. [Whenever the Commission proposes to issue any license to
any person under section 103, it shall notify the Attorney General
of the proposed license and the proposed terms and conditions
thereof, except such classes or types of licenses, as the Commission,
with the approval of the Attorney General, may determine would
not significantly affect the licensee's activities under the antitrust
laws as specified in subsection 105 a. Within a reasonable time,
in no event to exceed 90 days after receiving such notification, the
Attorney General shall advise the Commission whether, insofar as
he can determine, the proposed license would tend to create or
maintain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust laws, and such
advice shall be published in the Federal Register. Upon the re-
quest of the Attorney General, the Commission shall furnish or
cause to be furnished such information as the Attorney General
determines to be appropriate or necessary to enable him to give
the advice called for by this section.]
"(1) The Commission shall promptly transmit to the Attorney
General a copy of any license application provided for in paragraph
(2) of this subsection, and a copy of any written request provided
for in paragraph (3) of this subsection; and the Attorney General
shall, within a reasonable time, but in no event to exceed 180 days
after receiving a copy of such application or written request,
render such advice to the Commission as he determines to be ap-
propriate in regard to the finding to be made by the Commission
pursuant to paragraph (5) of this subsection. Such advice shall
include an explanatory statement as to the reasons or basis there-
for.
"(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall apply to an appli-
cation for a license to construct or operate a utilization or produc-
tion facility under section 103, provided, however, that paragraph
(1) shall not apply to an application for a license to operate a
utilization or production
[p. 35]
-------
862 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
facility for which a construction permit was issued under section
103 unless the Commission determines such review is advisable
on the ground that significant changes in the licensee's activities
or proposed activities have occurred subsequent to the previous
review by the Attorney General and the Commission under this
subsection in connection with the construction permit for the
facility.
"(3) With respect to any Commission permit for the construc-
tion of a utilization or production facility issued pursuant to sub-
section 104 b. prior to the enactment into law of this subsection,
any person who intervened or ivho sought by timely written notice
to the Commission to intervene in the construction permit proceed-
ing for the facility to obtain a determination of antitrust consider-
ations or to advance a jurisdiction^ basis for such determination
shall have the right, upon a written request to the Commission, to
obtain an antitrust review under this section of the application for
an operating license. Such written request shall be made ivithin
25 days after the date of initial Commission publication in the
Federal Register of notice of the filing of an application for an
operating license or the facility or the date of enactment into law
of this subsection, whichever is later.
"(4) Upon the request of the Attorney General, the Commission
shall furnish or cause to be furnished such information as the
Attorney General determines to be appropriate for the advice
called for in paragraph (1) of this subsection.
"(5) Promptly upon receipt of the Attorney General's advice,
the Commission shall publish the advice in the Federal Register.
Where the Attorney General advises that there may be adverse
antitrust aspects and recommends that there be a hearing, the
Attorney General or his designee may participate as a party in the
proceedings thereafter held by the Commission on such licensing
matter in connection with the subject matter of his advice. The
Commission shall give due consideration to the advice received
from the Attorney General and to such evidence as may be pro-
vided during the proceedings in connection with such subject
matter, and shall make a finding as to whether the activities under
the license would create or maintain a situation inconsistent with
the antitrust laivs as specified in subsection 105 a.
"(6) In the event the Commission's finding under paragraph
(5) is in the affirmative, the Commission shall also consider, in
determining ivhether the license should be issued or continued,
such other factors, including the need for poiver in the affected
area, as the Commission in its judgment deems necessary to pro-
tect public interest. On the basis of its findings, the Commission
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 863
shall have the authority to issue or continue a license as applied
for, to refuse to issue a license, to rescind a license or amend it,
and to issue a license with such conditions as it deems appropriate.
"(7) The Commission, with the approval of the Attorney Gen-
eral, may except from any of the requirements of this subsection
such classes or types of licenses as the Commission may determine
would not significantly affect the applicant's activities under the
antitrust laivs as specified in subsection 105 a.
"(8) With respect to any application for a construction permit
on file at the time of enactment into laiv of this subsection, ivhich
permit would be for issuance under section 103, and ivith respect to
any application for an operating license in connection ivith ivhich a
ivritten request for an anti-
[p. 36]
trust review is made as provided for in paragraph (3), the
Commission, after consultation with the Attorney General,
may, upon determination that such action is necessary in
the public interest to avoid unnecessary delay, establish by
rule or order periods for Commission notification and receipt of
advice differing from those set forth above and may issue a con-
struction permit or operating license in advance of consideration
of and findings ivith respect to the matters covered in this sub-
section, provided, that any construction permit or operating license
so issued shall contain such conditions as the Commission deems
appropriate to assure that any subsequent findings and orders of
the Commission with respect to such matters will be given full
force and effect.
*******
SEC, 161. GENERAL PROVISIONS.—
"n. delegate to the General Manager or other officers of the
Commission any of those functions assigned to it under this Act
except those specified in sections 51, 57 b., 61, [102 (with respect
to the finding of practical value),] 108, 123, 145 b. (with respect to
the determination of those persons to whom the Commission may
reveal Restricted Data in the national interest), 145 f., and 161 a.;
*******
"SEC. 161. GENERAL PROVISIONS.-—
"v. (A) enter into contracts with persons licensed under
sections 53, 63, 103 or 104 for such periods of time as the
-------
864 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
Commission may deem necessary or desirable to provide, after
December 31, 1968, for the producing or enriching of special
nuclear material in facilities owned by the Commission; and
"(B) enter into contracts to provide, after December 31,
1968, for the producing or enriching of special nuclear mate-
rial in facilities owned by the Commission in accordance with
and within the period of an agreement for cooperation ar-
ranged pursuant to section 123 while comparable services are
made available pursuant to paragraph (A) of this subsection:
Provided, That (i) prices for services under paragraph (A) of
this subsection shall be established on a nondiscriminatory basis;
(ii) prices for services under paragraph (B) of this subsection
shall be no less than prices under paragraph (A) of this sub-
section; and (iii) any prices established under this subsection shall
be on a basis [which will provide reasonable compensation to the
Government] of recovery of the Government's costs over a reason-
able period of time: * * *
"SEC. 182. LICENSE APPLICATIONS.—
"c. The Commission shall not issue any license under section
103 for a utilization or production facility for the generation of
commercial power (under section 103,] until it has given notice in
writing to such regulatory agency as may have jurisdiction over
the rates and services [of] incident to the proposed activity [, to
municipalities, private utilities, public bodies, and cooperatives
within transmission
[p. 37]
distance authorized to engage in the distribution of electric
energy]; until it has published notice of the application in
such trade or news publications as the Commission deems
appropriate to give reasonable notice to municipalities, private
utilities, public bodies and cooperatives which might have a po-
tential interest in such utilization or production facility; and until
it has published notice of such application once each week for four
consecutive weeks in the Federal Register, and until four weeks
after the last notice.
"SEC. 191. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD.—
"a. Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 7 (a) and 8(a)
of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Commission is authorized
to establish one or more atomic safety and licensing boards, each
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 865
[composed] comprised of three members, [two of whom shall be
technically qualified and] one of whom shall be qualified in the
conduct of administrative proceedings [,] and tivo of ivhom shall
have such technical or other qualifications as the Commission
deems appropriate to the issues to be decided, to conduct such
hearings as the Commission may direct and make such inter-
mediate or final decisions as the Commission may authorize with
respect to the granting, suspending, revoking or amending of any
license or authorization under the provisions of this Act, any
other provision of law, or any regulation of the Commission issued
thereunder. The Commission may delegate to a board such other
regulatory functions as the Commission deems appropriate. The
Commission may appoint a panel of qualified persons from which
board members may be selected."
*******
"SEC. 274. COOPERATION WITH STATES.—
"h. [There is hereby established a Federal Radiation Council,
consisting of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, the
Chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, the Secretary of De-
fense, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of Labor, or the<'r
designees, and such other members as shall be appointed by the
President. The Council shall consult qualified scientists and ex-
perts in radiation matters, including the President of the National
Academy of Sciences, the Chairman of the National Committee on
Radiation Protection and Measurement, and qualified experts in
the field of biology and medicine and in the field of health physics.
The Special Assistant to the President for Science and Technology,
or his designee, is authorized to attend meetings, participate in
the deliberations of and to advise the Council. The Chairman of
the Council shall be designated by the President, from time to
time, from among the members of the Council. The Council shall
advise the President with respect to radiation matters, directly or
indirectly affecting health, including guidance for all Federal
agencies in the formulation of radiation standards and in the
establishment and execution of programs of cooperation with
States. The Council shall also perform such other functions as
the President may assign to it by Executive Order.]
[p. 38]
Any Government agency designated by the President is hereby
authorized and directed to enter into and administer an arrange-
ment with the National Council on Radiation Protection and
-------
866 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
Measurements for a comprehensive and continuing review of
basic radiation protection standards and the scientific bases
therefor, pertinent to the health and safety aspects of exposure
to radioactivity resulting from the development, use or control
of atomic energy, and an arrangement ivith the National Academy
of Sciences for a comprehensive and continuing revieiv of the
biological effects of radiation on man and the ecology in order to
provide information pertinent to basic radiation protection
standards. The respective scopes of the arrangements may, in
the discretion of the President or the designated Government
agency, also encompass exposure to the effects of radiation from
sources other than the development, use or control of atomic
energy. The respective arrangements shall require—
(1) the conduct by the National Council on Radiation Pro-
tection and Measurements of a full-scale revierv of the radia-
tion protection guides presently in effect by virtue of the
recommendations of the Federal Radiation Council, and of all
available scientific information;
(2) the conduct by the National Academy of Sciences of a
full-scale revierv of the biological effects of radiation, includ-
ing all available scientific information;
(3) consultations between the National Council on Radia-
tion Protection and Measurements and the National Academy
of Sciences to assure effective coordination betiveen these two
bodies to serve the objective of the arrangements;
(4) consultations by the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements and by the National Academy
of Sciences, respectively, with scientists outside and within
the Government;
(5) the preparation and submittal by the National Council
on Radiation Protection and Measurements to the President,
or to the Government agency administering the arrangements,
and to the Congress, by December 31, 1970, of its first com-
plete report of its review activities, ivhich shall also set forth
its recommendations respecting basic radiation protection
standards and the reasons therefor;
(6) the maintenance by the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements of reasonably thorough knowl-
edge of scientific matters pertinent to basic radiation protec-
tion standards ivithin the scope of the arrangement, including
studies and research previously performed, currently in
progress or being planned;
(7) such recommendations by the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements and the National
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 867
Academy of Sciences respecting the conduct of any studies
or research directly or indirectly pertinent to the basic radia-
tion protection standards, or the biological effects of radiation
on man and the ecology, under the respective scope of each
arrangement, as either body deems advisable from time to
time;
(8) the furnishing of scientific information and advice by
the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measure-
ments and by the National Academy of Sciences, within the
respective scopes of the arrangements, to the President, Gov-
ernment agencies, the
[p. 39]
States, and others, at the request of the President or the
Government agency administering the arrangements;
(9) the furnishing of scientific information and advice by
the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measure-
ments and by the National Academy of Sciences, within the
respective scopes of the arrangements, to the Congress pur-
suant to the request of any Committee of the Congress;
(10) the preparation and transmittal to the President or to
the Government agency administering the arrangements, and
to the Congress, by the National Council on Radiation Pro-
tection and Measurements and by the National Academy of
Sciences, at the end of each calendar year subsequent to 1970,
of a report covering their respective review activities during
the year; the report by the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements shall also set forth any signifi-
cant scientific developments relative to basic radiation pro-
tection standards, including any 'recommendations, and the
report by the National Academy of Sciences shall set forth
any significant scientific developments bearing on the biolog-
ical effects of radiation on man and the ecology, including
recommendations;
(11) the preparation and transmittal to the President, or
to the Government agency administering the arrangements,
and to the Congress, by the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements of a prompt report of any sig-
nificant changes which it deems advisable to recommend in
regard to its previous recommendations respecting basic ra-
diation protection standards or the scientific bases therefor
and not theretofore identified in its reports; and
(12) the conduct of the activities of the National Council
on Radiation Protection and Measurements and of the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences, under the respective arrange-
-------
868 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
ments, in accordance with high substantive and procedural
standards of sound scientific investigation and findings.
Reports received from the National Council on Radiation Pro-
tection and Measurements and the National Academy of Sciences
under the arrangements shall be promptly published by the Gov-
ernment agency administering the arrangements. All recommen-
dations, in such reports by the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements, respecting basic radiation protec-
tion standards pertinent to the health and safety aspects of expo-
sure to radioactivity resulting from the development, use or control
of atomic energy, shall be carefully considered by any Government
agency having authority to establish such standards, and, within a
reasonable period of time, such Government agency shall submit
to the Joint Committee a report setting forth in detail its deter-
minations respecting the recommendations and the measures, re-
visions, or other actions it proposes to take, adopt, or effect in
relation to the recommendations.
[p. 40]
l.lx(2) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
S. REP. No. 91-1247, 91st Cong., 2d Sess. (1970)
AMENDING THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS
AMENDED, TO ELIMINATE THE REQUIREMENT FOR
A FINDING OF PRACTICAL VALUE, TO PROVIDE FOR
PRELICENSING ANTITRUST REVIEW OF PRODUCTION
AND UTILIZATION FACILITIES, AND TO EFFECTUATE
CERTAIN OTHER PURPOSES PERTAINING TO NU-
CLEAR FACILITIES
SEPTEMBER 29, 1970.—Ordered to be printed
Mr. PASTORE, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany S. 4141]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered S.
4141, an original committee bill to amend the Atomic Energy Act
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
869
of 1954, as amended, and for other purposes, report favorably
thereon and recommend that the bill do pass.
SUMMARY OF BILL
* * *
[P. i]
l.lx(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 116 (1970)
l.lx(3)(a) Sept. 30: Considered and passed House, pp. 34309-34321
AMENDING ATOMIC ENERGY ACT
OF 1954
Mr. HOLIPIELD. Mr. Speaker, I
move that the House resolve itself into
the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union for the consid-
eration of the bill (H.R. 18679) to
amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended, to eliminate the require-
ment for a finding of practical value,
and for other purposes.
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly, the House resolved it-
self into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for
the consideration of the bill H.R. 18679,
with Mr. BURKE of Massachusetts in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first
reading of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule,
the gentleman from California (Mr.
HOLIFIELD) will be recognized for 30
minutes and the gentleman from Cali-
fornia (Mr. HOSMER), will be recog-
nized for 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from California (Mr. HOLIFIELD).
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
Mr. Chairman, the bill before us,
H.R. 18679, covers three main features
and several items that are needed to
update, clarify, and improve the provi-
sions of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as heretofore amended.
The bill was unanimously adopted by
the Joint Committee on Atomic En-
ergy, which I have the honor to chair.
It was reported out by our committee
without a dissenting vote. The legis-
lation it embodies is distilled essence
from a number of legislative proposals
during the past several years, con-
siderable testimony and submitted
comments by representatives of the
Government, industry, and other in-
terested groups and, finally, very
thorough consideration by the joint
committee.
I will briefly summarize the contents
of H.R. 18679, and then I, and my fel-
low committee members of the House,
will be pleased to answer any questions
that may be raised.
First, the bill would erase from the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954 the re-
quirement that the Atomic Energy
Commission must make a finding of
practical value before nuclear power-
plants or other nuclear facilities may
be licensed for industrial or commer-
cial purposes. The Commission has
not yet made a finding of practical
value for any type of nuclear facility,
and consequently nuclear powerplants
are still being licensed as research and
development facilities. The concept of
a finding of practical value as a condi-
-------
870
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
tion precedent to commercial licensing
appeared to be a good idea in 1954,
when the generation of electrical en-
ergy through the use of nuclear reac-
tors was just a promising prospect for
the distant future. Now, this concept
serves no useful purpose. It is simply
an unnecessary roadblock to the com-
mercial licensing of nuclear power-
plants. The bill removes this hurdle.
Pursuant to section 6 of the bill, nu-
clear facilities—defined in the Atomic
Energy Act as utilization and produc-
tion facilities—that are to be used for
industrial or commercial purposes,
would have to be licensed accordingly,
unless some future law otherwise spe-
cifically authorizes or a particular
application is covered by either of the
two small exception categories speci-
fied in revised section 102 of the
Atomic Energy Act.
In amending the Atomic Energy Act
to remove the concept of a finding, the
bill clarifies and revises the present
provisions of subsection 105 (c) of the
act, relative to prelicensing antitrust
review of applications for nuclear fa-
cilities for commercial or industrial
purposes. The revised subsection
105(c), as spelled out in section 6 of
the bill and as further explained in the
report accompanying the bill, repre-
sents many hours of careful considera-
tion by the committee and its staff.
Particularly close attention was de-
voted to all the ingredient details. In
the committee's unanimous judgment,
the procedure set forth in section 6 of
the bill is reasonable, fair, and work-
able. It subjects applications for
nuclear powerplants to a process in-
volving a review by the Attorney
General and then a finding by the
Atomic Energy Commission as to
whether the activities under the license
would create or maintain a situation
inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
The Attorney General has up to 180
days to render advice to the Commis-
sion, and if the Attorney General rec-
ommends that there may be adverse
antitrust aspects and recommends that
there be a hearing, the Commission
must conduct a hearing and give due
consideration to the advice received
from the Attorney General and also to
such evidence as may be provided dur-
ing the proceeding; and the Commis-
sion must then make a finding as to
whether the activities under the li-
cense would create or maintain a situa-
tion inconsistent with the antitrust
laws as specified in subsection 105 (a)
of the Atomic Energy Act. Addition-
ally, if the Attorney General does not
so advise and recommend, but anti-
trust issues are raised by another in a
manner according with the Commis-
sion's rules or regulations, the Com-
mission would be obliged to give such
consideration thereto as may be re-
quired by the Administrative Proce-
dure Act and the Commission's rules
and regulations. In the latter regard,
the committee intends that, in any
event, the Commission's rules and reg-
ulations will set a fixed period in
which such issues may be raised. It is
hoped that this period will coincide
with and not extend beyond the speci-
fied period in which the Attorney Gen-
eral's advice may be rendered. The
bill contemplates that all aspects of
the antitrust considerations consti-
tuting part of the Commission's total
licensing procedure, including the ul-
timate findings by the Commission,
would be dealt with in such a way as
not to impose an additional delaying
factor. We believe a separate board
can be utilized by the Commission in
connection with such antitrust consid-
erations. This feature of the total li-
censing process should be completed
by the Commission before the radio-
logical health and safety matters are
concluded in the licensing procedure.
I must emphasize, and it must be
borne in mind, that this whole anti-
trust feature of the Atomic Energy
Commission's licensing procedure will
be completely separate and apart from
the application of the antitrust laws
now on the statute books. The anti-
trust laws, and the authorities and re-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
871
sponsibilities of the Attorney General
and others by virtue of these laws or
in connection therewith, and the im-
plementation of these laws, remain
completely unaffected by the antitrust
review dealt with in section 6 of the
bill. The antitrust laws referred to
in subsection 105 (a) of the Atomic
Energy Act are not qualified, limited,
extended, or interfered with in any
way whatsoever.
The second main feature of the bill
is the amendment to the Atomic En-
ergy Act contained in section 8 of the
bill. When I use the word "amend-
ment" I
[p. 34309]
overstate somewhat, because the com-
mittee's recommended change in lan-
guage as set forth in section 8 merely
is intended to assure that the original
intent of Congress underlying the
present wording of the statute will con-
tinue to be complied with by the Atomic
Energy Commission.
Section 8 of the bill amends subsec-
tion 161 (v) of the Atomic Energy
Act which was added by the Private
Ownership of Special Nuclear Mate-
rials Act of 1964. It relates to the
furnishing by the AEC of uranium en-
richment services—increasing the
percentage of fissionable isotopes in
natural uranium so that the enriched
material can be used as fuel in nuclear
reactors. The 1964 amendment pro-
vided that the AEC was to establish
prices for that service "on a basis
which will provide reasonable com-
pensation to the Government." It
further provided that the AEC was to
establish written criteria for the fur-
nishing of that service and the prices
to be charged. The legislative back-
ground clearly indicated that it was
intended that the^basis for the charges
would be the Government's costs.
In compliance with the statutory
mandate and in keeping with the legis-
lative history, including hearings and
the joint committee report accompany-
ing the statute, the AEC proposed and
the joint committee after further ex-
tensive hearings concurred in, criteria
which provided for prices based on the
recovery of appropriate Government
costs over a reasonable period of time.
These criteria were formally estab-
lished and remained in effect. In June
of this year, the AEC proposed radi-
cally revised criteria which are not
based on the recovery of the Govern-
ment's costs. AEC has proposed shift-
ing from pricing based on recovery of
Government costs to charges based on
a hypothetical, privately owned plant
of the future, using assumed factors
for construction costs, capital struc-
ture, operating costs, and profits that
are not pinned down in terms of num-
bers or dollars. In other words, the
new criteria are completely rubbery
and can serve to justify whatever
prices AEC may decide on from time
to time.
The process for enriching uranium is
under Government monopoly. There is
no similar commercial operation. The
concept of charging for enriching serv-
ices performed by the Government on
the basis of appropriate cost recovery
is consistent with traditional methods
of Government pricing for materials
and services made available to others.
The U.S. Government is not a profit-
making operation, and neither the joint
committee nor the Congress, in author-
izing the AEC to perform this service,
intended to create a profitmaking oper-
ation.
The committee has consistently ob-
tained the advice of the General Ac-
counting Office on this subject. In
1966, the GAO reported that the then
proposed and subsequently adopted,
criteria relative to pricing provided a
reasonable basis for recovering the
Government costs. In 1967, after re-
viewing the actual price to be charged,
the GAO reported that such price—$26
per unit—was adequate to recover ap-
propriate costs and was consistent with
the established criteria. In response to
;he joint committee's request for a re-
view of AEC's proposed change in cri-
-------
872
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
teria, the GAO reported that the
revised criteria do not appear to be
consistent with the intention of the
Congress. GAO also expressed the
opinion that there is doubt that AEC's
revised criteria are authorized.
Before I end my brief discussion of
this feature, I would like to emphasize
the amendment in this bill may not
prevent price increases. AEC's new
price may also be justified on the basis
of the old criteria. The amendment
will assure that any price charged is
on the basis of recovery of the Govern-
ment's costs—factors which at any
point in time are known or ascertain-
able—concrete factors—not hypothet-
ical, assumed factors which can easily
be twisted and stretched to conform to
any intended price. Just, fair and
reasonable criteria can assure not only
the validity of the price, based on the
recovery of appropriate Government
costs over a reasonable period of time,
but also reasonable price stability so es-
sential to reliable, long-range planning
necessarily employed in the electric
power industry. This is what Congress
intended in 1964 and this is what sec-
tion 8 of the bill will assure—no more
and no less.
Section 11 covers the third principal
feature of the bill. This section of H.R.
18679 would enlist the preeminent sci-
entific talents of the National Council
on Radiation Protection and Measure-
ments and the National Academy of
Sciences in a comprehensive and co-
ordinated effort to review the presently
applicable basic radiation protection
standards, and the scientific bases
therefor, pertinent to the health and
safety aspects of exposure to radio-
activity resulting from the develop-
ment, use, or control of atomic energy.
Any Government agency designated
by the President would be authorized
and directed to enter into and adminis-
ter arrangements with two uniquely
qualified bodies under which they would
conduct full-scale reviews on a continu-
ing and comprehensive basis, furnish
annual and other reports of their find-
ings, and submit their recommenda-
tions. The National Academy of
Sciences would conduct a comprehen-
sive and continuing review of the bio-
logical effects of radiation on man and
the ecology in order to provide infor-
mation pertinent to basic radiation
protection standards. The arrange-
ment with the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measure-
ments would essentially focus on radia-
tion protection standards. Pursuant
to section 11, the arrangements would
provide for the conduct of the activities
of the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements and of
the National Academy of Sciences in
accordance with high substantive and
procedural standards of sound scien-
tific investigation and findings; among
other things, this should assure that all
interested and qualified individuals and
groups would have the opportunity to
present information and views to these
bodies.
If Reorganization Plan No. 3 becomes
law, the President could, for example,
designate the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency created by that plan as the
contracting or administering agency
for the Government. Both the Na-
tional Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements and the National
Academy of Sciences have advised the
joint committee informally that they
would be pleased to enter into arrange-
ments contemplated by section 11.
Under the bill, reports by the Na-
tional Council on Radiation Protection
and Measurements and the National
Academy of Sciences would be
promptly published, and all recom-
mendations in such reports pertinent
to the health and safety aspects of ex-
posure to radioactivity resulting from
the development, use or control of
atomic energy would have to be care-
fully considered by any Government
agency having authority to establish
such standards. Additionally, within
a reasonable period of time, each of
such Government agencies would be
required to submit a report to the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
873
Congress setting forth in detail its
determinations respecting the recom-
mendations by the National Council
and the Academy, and the measures,
revisions, or other actions it plans to
take, adopt, or effect in relation to the
recommendations. Such agencies
would, of course, be free to continue
to avail themselves of any expert out-
side advice.
The Joint Committee believes that
the public can only be reassured by the
knowledge that the finest scientific
brains in the country are keeping
abreast of scientific developments on a
continuing and comprehensive basis,
and providing recommendations in re-
gard to basic radiation protection
standards. The Joint Committee unan-
imously believes that such a solid basis
incident to the establishment of basic
radiation protection standards would
be invaluable.
I should like to have inserted in the
RECORD at this point the section-by-sec-
tion analysis of the bill, as contained in
the committee's accompanying report.
This material, together with the re-
mainder of the report—all of which
should be perused by anyone deeply
interested in all the aspects of the bill
and its background—elaborates on each
section. The section-by-section anal-
ysis also contains a paragraph which
the committee specially wished to add
to lay to rest any concern that section
272 of the Atomic Energy Act, which
relates to commercially licensed nuclear
powerplants, was intended to modify
or affect in any way the provisions of
the Federal Power Act. It was not so
intended, and the committee unan-
imously reaffirms this. Incidentally,
this explanatory paragraph, which ap-
pears on page 27 of the report ac-
companying the bill was intended to
precede the paragraph starting with
the words "section 4 of the bill."
The material follows:
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Section 1 of the bill amends paragraph (4) of
subsection 31 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, which now reads as follows:
"(4) utilization of special nuclear material,
atomic energy, and radioactive material and
processes entailed in the utilization or produc-
tion of atomic energy or such material for all
other purposes, including industrial uses, the
generation of usable
[p. 34310]
energy, and the demonstration of the practical
value of utilization or production facilities for
industrial or commercial -purposes; and" (italic
added)
The italicized portions would be re-worded to
accord with the subsequent provisions of the
bill respecting the elimination of the concept of a
finding of "practical value" and concerning the
licensing of utilization and production facilities
for industrial or commercial purposes. The
phrase "including industrial uses" would be re-
vised to "including industrial or commercial
uses" and the phrase "the demonstration of the
practical value of utilization or production fa-
cilities for industrial or commercial purposes"
would be changed to "the demonstration of ad-
vances on the commercial or industrial applica-
tion of atomic energy." These changes are
essentially technical in nature; they do not effect
any major substantive alteration of subsection
31 a. of the Act.
Section 2 of the bill amends the second sen-
tence of section 56 of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, which now piovides:
"The Commission shall also establish for such
periods of time as it may deem necessary but not
to exceed ten years as to any such period, guar-
anteed purchase pi-ices for uranium enriched in
the isotope 233 produced in a nuclear reactor by
a person licensed under section 104 and deliv-
ered to the Commission within the period of the
guarantee." (Italic added.)
The italicized phrase would be revised to
"under section 103 or section 104". With respect
to guaranteed purchase prices for U233, which
the Commission has recently established for a
5-year period, it is appropriate and advisable
that these apply to licensed nuclear facilities,
including, as provided for in the bill, those li-
censed under section 103.
Section 3 of the bill amends section 102 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to
eliminate the requirement for a finding by the
Commission "that any type of utilization or
production facility has been sufficiently developed
to be of practical value for industrial or com-
mercial purposes" as a condition precedent to
the "commercial" licensing of such type of
facility under section 103.
Under the revised section 102, all utilization
and production facilities for industrial or com-
mercial purposes, with two exceptions, would be
subject to licensing under section 103. The two
exceptions would be (i) facilities constructed or
operated under an ari'angement with the Com-
mission entered into under the cooperative power
reactor demonstration program, unless the appli-
cable law required licensing under section 103,
-------
874
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
and (ii) facilities covered by a subsection 104b.
construction permit or operating license before
and at the time the bill is enacted into law. In
regard to (i), the bases for arrangements under
the cooperative power reactor demonstration
program, which program has for many years
been separately covered in the AEC's authoriza-
tion acts, are carefully reviewed by this commit-
tee. Should it be desirable in the case of any
contemplated future cooperative demonstration
project to require that the nuclear facility in-
volved be licensed under section 103 instead of
subsection 104b., this could be done in the en-
abling statute. In regard to (ii), the committee
believes it would impose an unnecessary hardship
on subsection 104b. licensees to compel them to
convert their permits to section 103 licenses; the
matter of potential antitrust review of certain
subsection 104 licenses is specifically dealt with
in section 6 of the bill, and is discussed below,
and it appears to the committee that no useful
purpose could be served by compelling any con-
version to section 103. The committee heie
visualizes that amendments, as such, to an exist-
ing subsection 104b. license will not affect the
exception to section 103 licensing. If, however,
the facility is to be modified to such a degree as
to constitute a new or substantially different
facility, as provided in a regulation or order
issued by the Commission, the exception to sec-
tion 103 licensing is not intended to be applicable
to the necessary license amendment. Aside from
these two exception categories—demonstration
facilities under the cooperative power reactor
demonstration program and previously licensed
104b. facilities—any license for a utilization or
productio i facility for industrial or commercial
licenses would be issued under section 103, unless
some future law otherwise specifically provides.
Section 4 of the bill amends the first sentence
of subsection 103 a. of the Act which now reads
as follows:
During ^he hearings pertaining to this legisla-
tion there was a suggestion that there ought to
be a clearer indication of Congressional intent
that section 272 of the Atomic Energy Act did
not constitute a modification of the Federal
Power Act. The Joint Committee very caie-
fully considered this item and concluded that
the legislative history of section 272 indicated
quite clearly that the committee and the Con-
gress had not intended thereby to modify or af-
fect in any way the provisions of the Fedeial
Power Act. The committee unanimously recon-
firms this intention. In effect section 272 should
be read as if the clause "to the extent therein
provided" appeared at the end of the text.
"Subsequent to a finding by the Commission
as required in section 102, the Commission may
issue licenses to transfer or receive in interstate
commerce, manufacture, produce, transfer, ac-
quire, possess, use, import, or export under the
terms of an agreement for cooperation arranged
pursuant to section 123, such type of utilization
or production facility." (Italics added.)
The italicized clause would be deleted, since
the requirement for a "practical value" finding
would be eliminated. The concluding clause
"such type of utilization or production facility"
would be changed to "utilization or production
facilities for industrial or commercial purposes."
The revised version would provide for the issu-
ance to persons of "commercial" licenses with
respect to "utilization and production facilities
for industrial or commercial purposes."
Section 5 of the bill would revise subsection
104 b. of the act to authorize the issuance of
licenses under that subsection for utilization or
pioduction facilities for industrial or commercial
purposes (i) where specifically authorized by
law, or (ii) where the facility is constructed or
operated under an arrangement with the Com-
mission enteied into under the coopeiative power
reactoi demonstration program, and the appli-
cable statutory authorization does not require
licensing under section 103, or (iii) where the
facility was theretofore licensed under subsec-
tion 104 b.
In icvising the text of subsection 104b, the
committee has retained the present requirement
that "the Commission shall impose the minimum
amount of such regulations and terms of license
as will permit the Commission to fulfill its obli-
gations under the Act," but deleted the balance
of the present text because subsection 104b
licenses would not be convertible to section 103
licenses under the bill, and because there is no
longer any need to provide for priority of li-
censes "to those activities which will, in the
opinion of the Commission, lead to major ad-
vances in the application of atomic energy for
industiial or commercial purposes."
In retaining the present language respecting
the imposition of the minimum amount of regu-
lations and terms of license, the committee
wishes to emphasize that the only purpose here
was to reiterate, not to make new law; thus,
requirements of applicable laws, such as the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(Public Law 91-190) and the Water Quality
Improvement Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-224),
enacted subsequent to the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, remain unaffected by the reiteration of this
feature of the present provisions of subsection
104b.
The bill does not affect in any way subsections
104a, 104c, or 104d, or the caption of sec-
tion 104, "Medical Therapy and Research and
Development."
The committee is aware that university-licen-
sees under subsection 104c, and other licensees
under subsections 104a or 104c, sometimes use
these reactors for industrial or commercial pur-
poses. It is the intention of the committee that
such insubstantial use not affect licensing under
section 104; however, should the Commission
find that any facility so licensed is being used
substantially for industrial or commercial pur-
poses, then the Commission shall determine
whether such use is sufficiently substantial to
entail licensing under sectica 103.
Section 6 of the bill clarifies and revises sub-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
875
section 105 c. of the act. The bill does not affect
in any way the important features contained in
the provisions of subsections 105 a. and 105 b. of
the 1954 act. These subsections remain separate,
distinct and wholly unaffected by the pioposed
revised subsection 105 c. For example, the At-
torney Geneial's advice under the new subsec-
tion 105 c., and the participation by the Attorney
General or his designee in the pioceedings le-
feired to in paiagraph (5) of the subsection,
would be completely separate and apart from
any actions the Attorney General may deem ad-
visable in relation to the antitiust laws leferred
to in subsection 105 a. Also, under paiagraph
(1) of the new subsection 105 c., the Attorney
General may, in his discretion, should he con-
sider that his advice might prejudice planned
actions under the antitrust laws refened to in
subsection 105 a., or for any other reason, ren-
der no advice to the Commission.
Paragraph (1) of ievised subsection 105 c.,
requiies the Commission piomptly to tiansmit
to the Attorney General a copy of any license
application to constiuct or opeiate a utilization
or production facility under section 103. Para-
giaph (1) also lequiies the Commission
promptly to tiansmit to the Attorney Geneial
written requests for potential antitiust leview
which are made by peisons who inteivened, or
who sought by timely written notice to the Com-
mission to inteivene, in the constiuction permit
proceeding for a facility licensed under subsec-
tion 104 b. prioi to the enactment of the bill into
law.
The Attoi ney General would have "a leason-
able time, but in no event to exceed 180 da>s
aftei leceiving a copy of such application or
written request" to "lendei such advice to the
Commission as he detei mines to be appropriate
in regard to the finding to be made by the Com-
mission" with respect to antitrust considera-
tions. The committee expects full and
expeditious coopeiation by the applicant, the
Commission and the Attorney General. To fa-
cilitate an early review by the Attoiney Geneial,
the committee suggests that, promptly upon
enactment into law of this bill, the Commission
and the Attorney General work out a suitable
understanding in regard to the nature of the in-
formation the Attoiney General would wish to
have at the outset, the Commission could then
plan to obtain the infoi mation fiom the appli-
cant at the same time that the application is
submitted to the Commission.
The advice which the Attorney General may
piovide would be advice which he "determines to
be appropiiate in regaid to the finding to be
made by the Commission." The advice need not
necessaiily fall within the oibit of the piesent
clause "tend to create or maintain a situation
inconsistent with the antitiust Jaws." If the
Attorney General deems it to be appiopi iate, ho
need not render any advice, in which case he
should
[p. 34311]
so inform the Commission. If he renders
advice, subparagrraph (1) requires that it in-
clude "an explanatory statement as to the rea-
sons or basis therefor"; this requirement is only
fair and reasonable, and it should help facilitate
and expedite the subsequent proceduie.
Paragraph (2) of revised subsection 105c.
provides that the potential antitrust review
shall not apply to an application for a license to
opeiate a utilization or pioduction facility for
which a constiuction permit was issued under
btction 103 "unless the Commission determines
such review is advisable on the ground that sig-
nificant changes have occurred in the licensee's
activities or pi oposed activities subsequent to
the pievious review by the Attorney General and
the Commission under this subsection in connec-
tion with the construction peimit for the facil-
ity." The committee sees no sense in two such
exeicises unless there have been significant in-
teivemng changes. The committee expects that
the Commission will consult with the Attorney
Geneial in regard to its determination respect-
ing significant changes. The term "signifi-
cant changes" refers to the licensee's activities
01 pi oposed activities; the committee considers
that it would be unfair to penalize a licensee
for significant changes not caused by the li-
censee or for which the licensee could not rea-
sonably be held responsible or answerable.
The committee recognizes that applications
may be amended from time to time, that there
may be applications to extend or review a li-
cense, and also that the form of an application
for a construction permit may be such that,
from the applicant's standpoint, it ultimately
lipens into the application for an operating
license. The phrases "any license application,"
"an application for a license," and "any applica-
tion" as used in the clarified and revised sub-
section 105 c. refer to the initial application for
a constiuction permit, the initial application for
operating license, or the initial application for
a modification which would constitute a new or
substantially different facility, as the case may
be, as determined by the Commission. The
phiases do not include, for pui poses of tiigger-
ing subsection 105 c., other applications which
may be filed during the licensing process.
Paragraph (3) piovides that with respect to
any Commission permit issued under subsection
104 b. befoie enactment of the bill into law, any
person who intervened or who sought by timely
wiitten notice to the Commission to intervene
in the constiuction permit proceeding to raise
the preiicensing antitrust issue will have the
right to obtain an antitrust icview under this
subsect.on, to do this, such person must make a
written lequest to the Commission within 25
dajs aftei the date of initial Commission publi-
cation in the Federal Register of notice of the
filing of an application for an operating license
for the facility or the date of enactment into law
of this subsection, whichever is later. It is the
committee's intent that such potentially eligible
intervenoib must be pel sons who could have
-------
876
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
qualified as intervenors under the Commission's
rules at the time of the initial attempt to inter-
vene if prelicensing antitrust review were then
properly for Commission consideration.
Paragraph (4) provides that, upon the request
of the Attorney General, the Commission shall
furnish or cause to be furnished "such informa-
tion as the Attorney General determines to be
appropriate" foi the advice he is to give. The
committee expects that the Commission will
make every reasonable effort to provide infor-
mation sought by the Attorney General.
There is an important aspect that the com-
mittee considers must be recognized and espe-
cially dealt with in a prudent and responsible
manner, and that is the matter of proprietary
information or data. The system in subsection
105 c. as in connection with othei aspects of the
licensing procedure, should be such as to pro-
vide reasonable safeguards against any leaks
or unwarranted dissemination of information
or data of a proprietary nature provided by or
in behalf of the applicant, and whether 01 not
the applicant is the proprietor.
Paragraph (5) requires that the Commission
promptly publish in the Fedeial Registei the
advice it receives fiom the Attorney General.
It further provides that if the Attorney General
"advises that there may be adverse antitrust
aspects and recommends that there be a hearing"
that the Attoiney General or his designee may
participate as a party "in the proceedings
thereafter held by the Commission on such
licensing matter in connection with the subject
matter of his advice." Such proceedings must be
held by the Commission if the Attorney General
advises that there may be adveise antitiust
aspects and recommends a hearing. Also, if he
does not so advise and lecommend, but antitrust
issues are raised by another in a manner accord-
ing with the Commission's rules 01 regulations,
the Commission would be obliged to give such
consideration thereto as may be requited by the
Administrative Procedure Act and the Commis-
sion's rules or regulations. Paragiaph (5)
requires that the Commission "give due con-
sideration to the advice i eceived from the
Attorney General and to such evidence as may be
provided during the proceedings in connection
with such subject matter." Whether or not the
Attorney Geneial appears as a party, all advice
and information provided by the Attorney
General that is utilized by the Commission
in arriving at its finding must be made a
matter of record. Paragiaph (5) furthei re-
quires that the Commission "make a finding
as to whether the activities under the license
would create or maintain a situation incon-
sistent with the antitrust laws as specified in
subsection 105a." This finding by the Commis-
sion is required only in those cases where the
Attorney General advises there may be adveise
antitrust aspects or antitrust issues are raised
by another in a manner according with the
Commission's rules and regulations.
With respect to the above finding, although
the words "reasonable probability" do not
appear in the standard, the concept of reason-
able probability is intended to be a silent
partner to the factors in the standard.
The standard must be considered in the focus
of reasonable probability—not ceitainty or
possibility.
The standai d pertains to the activities of
the license applicant. The activities of others,
such as designers, fabricatois, manufac-
turers, or suppliers of materials or services,
who, under some kind of direct or indirect
contractual relationship may be furnishing
equipment, materials or services for the
licensed facility would not constitute "ac-
tivities undei the license" unless the license
applicant is culpably involved in activities
of others that fall within the ambit of the
standai d.
Paragraph (6) provides that if the Commis-
sion finds "the activities under the license
would create or maintain a situation incon-
sistent with the antitrust laws as specified in
subsection 105 a." that the Commission "shall
also consider, in detei mining whether the
license should be issued or continued, such other
factors, including the need for power in the
affected area, as the Commission in its judgment
deems necessary to protect the public interest."
On the basis of all its findings—the finding
under paragraph (5) and its finding under paia-
graph (6) —the Commission would have the
authority "to issue 01 continue a license as
applied for, to refuse to issue a license, to
lescind a license 01 amend it, and to issue a
license with such conditions as it deems appro-
pi iate." While the Commission has the flexi-
bility to consider and weigh the various inter-
ests and objectives which may be involved, the
committee does not expect that an affirmative
finding under paragiaph (5) would noimally
need to be ovei ridden by Commission findings
and actions under paragraph (6). The Com-
mittee believes that, except in an extraordinary
situation, Commission-imposed conditions should
be able to eliminate the concerns entailed in
any affirmative finding under paragraph (5)
while, at the same time, accommodating the
other public interest concerns found pursuant to
paragraph (6). Normally, the committee expects
the Commission's actions under paragraph (5)
and (6) will harmonize both antitrust and such
other public interest considerations as may be
involved. In connection with the range of Com-
mission discretion, the committee notes that
pursuant to subsection 105 a. the Commission
may also take such licensing action as it deems
necessary in the event a licensee is found
actually to have violated any of the antitrust
laws. Of course, in the event the Commission's
finding under paragraph (5) is in the negative,
the Commission need not take any fui ther
action regarding antitrust under subsection
105 c.
Paragraph (7) of revised subsection 105c.
substantively carries over from the present
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
877
text the exception that the Commission "with
the approval of the Attorney General, may
except from any of the requirements of this
subsection such classes or types of licenses as
the Commission may determine would not sig-
nificantly affect the applicant's activities undei
the antitrust laws."
Paragraph (8) endeavors to deal sensibly
with those applications for a constiuction
permit which, upon the enactment of the bill
into law, would have to be converted to applica-
tions undei section 103. In some cases, theie
might well be hardships caused by delays due to
the new requiiement for a potential antitiust
review undei revised subsection 105 c. Paragraph
(8) would authorize the Commission, after
consultation with the Attorney General, to deter-
mine that the public inteiest would be seived
by the issuance of a permit containing conditions
to assure that the results of a subsequently
conducted antitiust review would be given full
force and effect. Paragraph (8) similarly ap-
plies to applications foi an operating license in
connection with which a written request Tor
an antitrust leview is made as provided foi in
paragraph (3).
Section 7 of the bill effects a perfecting
change in subsection 161 n. of the act to delete
the reference to a finding of practical value.
Section 8 of the bill changes seveial words
in the fiist proviso of subsection 161 v. to
support the intention of the Congress when
this subsection was enacted into law. The
clarified provision expressly indicates that the
prices for enriching services "shall be on a
basis of recovery of the Goveinment's costs
over a reasonable period of time." As the
legislative history of this statute discloses, and
as the Comptroller General has discerned in his
report to the Joint Committee on July 17, 1970,
it was intended that the price to be charged by
the AEC for toll emichment should be based on
the recovery of appropriate Government costs
averaged over a period of yeai s. Undei the
clarified version of subsection 161 v., the com-
mittee intends that the criteria in effect since
1966 will continue to be in effect subject to any
Commission proposed revisions thereto that con-
form to the requirement of the statute and are
submitted to the committee for its review. The
committee expects that the Commission will
consult with the General Accounting Office in
regard to any such pioposed revisions.
Section 9 of the bill amends subsection 182 c.
to delete the phrase "within transmis-
[p. 34312]
sion distance" and to amend the general notice
provision.
Section 10 of the bill amends the fiist sen-
tence of subsection 191 a. which now requires
that of the three members of any Atomic Safety
and Licensing Board two members "shall be
technically qualified," and the third "shall be
qualified in the conduct of administrative pro-
ceedings". Section 10 would permit two
members to have "such technical or other qual-
ifications as the Commission deems appropriate
to the issues to be decided"; the thiid member
would continue to be one "qualified in the
conduct of administiative pioceedings."
Section 11 of the bill revises the piesent text
of subsection 274 h to abolish the Fedeial Radia-
tion Council and to provide for conti actual
anangements with the National Council on
Radiation Pi otection and Measui ements and
with the National Academy of Sciences. Under
the levised text, any Government agency desig-
nated by the Piesident for the purpose would be
authorized and directed to enter into and admin-
ister an arrangement with the National Council
on Radiation Pi otection and Measurements for
a comprehensive and continuing review of basic
radiation protection standards, and the scientific
bases theiefor, pertinent to the health and
safety aspects of exposuie to radioactivity
icsulting from the development, use or contiol
of atomic energy. Any Goveinment agency
designated by the, President foi the purpose
would also be authoi ized to enter into and
administer an ai rangement with the National
Academy of Sciences for a comprehensive and
continuing review of the biological effects of
ladiation on man and the ecology in order to
obtain information peitinent to basic ladiation
protection standards. The levised subsection
274 h. specifies that the respective airangements
shall require the conduct of the National Council
on Radiation Pi otection and Measurements and
by the National Academy of Sciences, respec-
tively, of a numbei of functions lelative to the
fields of radiation and the biological effects of
radiation. Undei the arrangements the Na-
tional Committee on Radiation Protection and
Measurements and the National Academy of
Sciences will concein themselves essentially with
information and matters lelative to the "hard"
sciences, as distinguished fiom sociological or
"soft" science considerations. The latter con-
siderations would be identified and dealt with by
the Govei nment agency having authority to
establish i adiation pi otection standards. All
matters pertaining to basic radiation pi otection
standards peitinent to the health and safety
aspects of exposure to radioactivity resulting
fiom the development, use or control of atomic
energy would be promptly repoited to the Joint
Committee. The contracting Government
agency may, in the discretion of the Piesident,
be any Government agency or agencies; the con-
tiactual airangements may be administered by
any Government agency or agencies designated
by the President.
At this point I want to depart from
my prepared script to say that this
country is facing a crisis in electrical
energy. We must double the electrical
generating capacity of this country
within the next 10 years, and then
double that again in the succeeding 10
-------
878
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
years.
We Members in this Capitol know
that just a week ago we had half of the
lights turned off in the Capitol because
of reduced availability of power in this
area. I am telling you that this whole
country faces that situation; we are
facing brownouts and blackouts unless
we get these electrical plants into oper-
ation—these new additional generat-
ing capacities.
Now, I am speaking today for nu-
clear power alone. I am saying that
we are going to have to have electricity
from uranium, from coal, from oil, and
from gas. We are going to need every
kilowatt we can produce from all of
these substances, and we are going to
have to revise our methods so that
present contaminating effluents are re-
moved.
Now, the public is going to have to
pay for that, and they will pay for it.
If we want a clean environment we are
going to have to pay for it, and the
public will pay for it through increased
rates, and I think they will want to
pay for it.
Already we have had brownouts and
blackouts.
I tell you, we will never—never solve
the problem of pollution itself without
adequate nonpolluting energy. I do not
care whether the problem is cleaning
up our water, or taking the particu-
lates out of smokestacks so we can
have clean air, or whether it is solidify-
ing old automobiles into small masses
to be disposed of properly or recycled
for some reuse of material—it does not
make any difference what field of pol-
lution we face, we are going to have to
have adequate, economical, and clean
electricity to solve that problem. We
are just kidding ourselves if we over-
look this basic fact.
This is one of the reasons we are here
on the floor of the House today—to see,
in connection with this bill I am ex-
plaining, that we do have an adequate
chance to get these plants into opera-
tion without a lot of interference from
people who do not have a sufficient un-
derstanding of the technical problems
involved or about the technical safe-
guards that have been engineered into
nuclear plants.
These people, who are ignorant in
some instances and misinformed in
many cases, do not realize the obstruc-
tive harm they are doing.
Seventy percent of electrical energy
is used in industry which provides
their jobs.
Thirty percent of electrical energy is
used for local and residential services.
It runs their appliances, their refriger-
ators, and their air conditioners.
When the brownouts and blackouts
hit their communities they will sud-
denly realize the foolishness of their
actions. Then it may be too late. It
takes 4, 5, and 6 years to build a mod-
ern generating plant. You cannot
wave a wand and create electricity.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman,
I want to commend the chairman of the
committee for what he has just said,
and said very forcefully and very hon-
estly, as to the energy crisis confront-
ing this country.
The chairman of the Joint Commit-
tee on Atomic Energy has demon-
strated to me through the years the
capacity and the ability to see down
the road as far as anybody I know in
the House. When the gentleman tells
us that our power requirements are go-
ing to double in 10 years, I think he is,
if anything, understating what the sit-
uation is.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. The gentleman
will agree with me, coming from a gas-
producing area, that there is going to
be a shortage of gas this winter.
There is already a shortage of coal
and delays in the delivery of coal. You
cannot get a contract today for coal
longer than 1 or 2 years. The custom-
ary time used to be 5 and 10 years for
coal contracts for delivery at a speci-
fied time.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
879
On the average, the cost of coal has
gone up about 56 percent in the last 18
months. The cost of imported residual
low sulfur content oil has almost dou-
bled. So these are some of the factors
that are building up to an actual and
serious scarcity of energy.
The fact that the coal is not being
delivered, pursuant to contracts to
these electrical plants, as it has been
in the past, is another factor.
These are the factors that make me
believe we are going to have serious
blackouts and brownouts in this coun-
try before we realize it.
Mr. EDMONDSON. We are already
having them, as the chairman well
knows, and we are going to have more
of them this winter and next summer,
regardless of what we do.
What we must do is to address our-
selves to this problem as rapidly as
possible.
I know that the chairman did not in-
tend to omit, when he listed the prin-
cipal sources of power, another source,
which he has always supported vigor-
ously, and that is hydroelectric power.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. That is right.
Let me say, I did not mention it because
it only amounts to a very few percent
of the total electric supply. It is im-
portant as it can be, because it is clean
and because it is cheap. Every hydro-
electric facility in the Nation should be
utilized because we are going to need
every kilowatt that we can get.
Mr. EDMONDSON. I agree whole-
heartedly with what the chairman is
saying. I think he has emphasized it
at a most appropriate time. I congrat-
ulate the gentleman on his presenta-
tion.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I will append to
my remarks some very pertinent ex-
cerpts from national papers and maga-
zines on the national fuel shortage:
NATIONAL FUEL SHORTAGE
I. COAL
TVA had invited coal supply bids at the same
time as the nuclear but none were forthcoming,
and apparently it wouldn't have mattered any-
way. TVA said its cost analysis showed that a
coal-fired plant would have had to have coal at
19c/million Btu to be competitive with the
nuclear power-production costs. This would
have been the equivalent of about $4.30/ton of
average coal and TVA said recent coal bids it
has received have been about twice that price.
("Nucleonics Week," September 3, 1970.)
Dm ing the 3 \z years elapsing between our
studies, the change in the cost of coal as
burned completely negates any assertion that
"coal alone could provide the nation with eco-
nomical and dependable fuel for generation."
In Maich 1966, our system average coal cost was
26.Sc per million Btu. By December 1969 it had
incieased to 30.9c. By July, 1970, our coal cost
had reached 42.Ic. (Duke Power Company—
lettei of August 31, 1970 in response to Sporn
Report.)
TVA reports that its coal delivery schedules
[p. 34313]
are not being met. It says stockpiles to feed
the coalburmng generating plants that pioduce
80 per cent of the system's electiic power aie
reaching critically low levels.
The utility, which has already established
a prionty schedule for winter "brownouts,"
reports that unless coal deliveries are incieased
and the decline in stockpiles halted, sharp power
cutbacks are inevitable.
Dover, Ohio registered a 65 per cent increase
in its coal prices in the first six months of this
year.
In Hamilton, Ohio, the electric company a
yeai ago paid $4.97 a ton for coal, plus $3 trans-
portation. Last month, the utility received bids
of $10.25 and $11.25 a ton, plus $4.20 for trans-
poi tation. ( "New York Times"—September
28, 1970.)
II. OIL
Biaintree Electric Light Department's short-
ages started a few weeks ago when its old
contiact for oil expired. Braintiee had been
paying $1.78 a barrel for oil. Now its oil is
supplied on a day-to-day basis at $3.65 a barrel,
and there is no guarantee of delivery.
Braintree has appealed to 25 oil firms all the
way down to New Jersey to bid on a new
contract. But no one is interested.
In Montpelier, Vt., Alan Weiss, the superin-
tendent of schools, says that the schools' sup-
plier makes no guaiantee that he can provide
enough oil this year. To conseive fuel, Mont-
pelier schools may have to hire a custodian to
keep thermostats down at night.
Changes in the international situation staited
pi ice soaring in May this year. By September
1, 1970, the price has zoomed to $2.72 a barrel;
and the spot (non-contracted) price had risen
to as much as $3.85 a barrel—almost double the
price in May ($1.80). ("Chi istian Science
Monitor"—September 28, 1970.)
During the past year, the city of Vineland
Electiic Utility converted to oil to meet state
air pollution legulations. We now use 90,000
gallons dai The supplier has cut back de-
livery to 50,000 gallons daily Septembei 1 and
-------
880
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
will promise no oil whatsoever after October 1,
1970. We have contacted six or seven of the
biggest suppliers. None will offer any oil in
October. Coal is also unavailable. Unless the
U.S. Government orders priority to utilities for
oil deliveries after October 1, we face shut down
of 80 per cent of our plant production which will
mean most of our customers will be without
light and power service. (Vineland Electric
Utility Company, Vineland, N.J. telegram of
August 21, 1970 to American Public Power
Association.)
The "Inflation Alert" reported that prices
of industrial fuel oil rose at an annual rate
of 48% during the first half of 1970, and
bituminous coal prices increased at an annual
rate of 56%. ("Inflation Alert"—August 7, 1970
published by President Nixon's Council of
Economic Advisers.)
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield to the
gentleman.
Mr. JONES of Alabama. Mr. Chair-
man, I, too, want to commend the
gentleman from California and par-
ticularly for the knowledge the gen-
tleman has about the energy situation
which confronts us, and which will be
with us certainly for the next decade.
At the present time, the building or
construction period is some 6 years that
it takes to build a plant producing say,
500,000 kilowatts. So there is need for
great haste. I am pleased that the
chairman of the committee, the gentle-
man from California (Mr. HOLIFIELD)
has pointed out to the committee the
dire necessity of hastening the produc-
tion of atomic energy and fissionable
material that is going to be required
along with other impediments that face
us in supplying the fuel that is neces-
sary for the generation of power.
Certainly, if we are going to live in
the comfort of the past, we are going to
have to recognize and confront the
problem, and the sooner the better.
Again I want to express my appreci-
ation for the vast amount of work that
you have done in the past in accumu-
lating the knowledge, practices, and
policies that have been sound and re-
warding to the American people.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I thank the gen-
tleman from Alabama.
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield ?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield to the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. WOLFF. I thank the gentle-
man. I wish to join in the statements
that have been made in congratulating
the gentleman in the well for his lead-
ership in this field. However, I feel
there are one or two points that should
be given consideration in addition to
the great need for power in this coun-
try. I am sure the gentleman is, and
always has been, a champion of the pro-
tection of our environment at the same
time as an advocate of nuclear power.
Serious questions have been raised re-
garding the effect on our environment
and our ecology that nuclear power
presents. On this score I have wondered
if the gentleman in the well would com-
ment on Reorganization Plan No. 3,
which has just passed the House, which
actually separates the functions of the
AEC. This is a development I have
been trying to achieve in Congress for
some time. I believe it is important
that we separate the functions of the
AEC which in the past has had the re-
sponsibility for both promoting nuclear
power as well as acting as the police-
man of nuclear power.
According to the Environmental Pro-
tection Act, which is established under
the Reorganization Plan No. 3:
There are hereby transferred to the Secretary
to be administered by him through the Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protection Admin-
istration all functions, powers, and duties—
. . . consist of establishing and enforcing
environmental standards and safeguards for the
protection of the general environment from
radioactive material which standards are defined
to mean: limits on radiation exposures or levels,
or concentrations of or quantities of radioactive
material, in the general environment outside the
boundaries of locations under the control of per-
sons possessing or using radioactive material.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. The answer to
the gentleman is "yes." The gentleman
knows that I handled Reorganization
Plan No. 3" on Monday of this week.
The gentleman has read a section from
the plan. It does transfer people who
set the environmental radiation stand-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
881
ards over from the Atomic Energy
Commission into the Environmental
Protection Agency. I was just about
to address myself to the third section
of the bill having covered the first two,
because it deals in substance in this
area.
The gentleman from California
knows of the gentleman's longstanding
interest in this matter, and the gen-
tleman I think can feel today quite
satisfied that the changes that are
proposed to be made by the Presidential
reorganization plan are along the lines
that he has been advocating.
Mr. WOLFF. I thank the gentle-
man.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I will address
myself to that section which pertains
to the radiation protection of the peo-
ple. Section 11 covers the third princi-
pal feature of the bill. This section of
H.R. 18679 would enlist the preeminent
scientific talents of the National Coun-
cil on Radiation Protection and Meas-
urements and the National Academy of
Sciences in a comprehensive and
coordinated effort to review the stat-
utorily applicable radiation protection
standards and the scientific bases
thereof.
The National Academy of Sciences,
by the way, was established in 1863 un-
der President Abraham Lincoln's ad-
ministration. That is how old that
institution is. The National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measure-
ments was established in 1929. It is
composed of some 65 or 70 distin-
guished scientists from all over the
United States, from the universities,
fields of medicine, and many other
fields.
These people serve without special
compensation. They serve as members
of an honorable body chartered by Con-
gress, they are most knowledgeable
in the field of radiation and its biologi-
cal effects.
The National Academy of Sciences
has an equally distinguished list of
scientists. They are particularly in-
terested in the effects of radiation on
humans. Their recommendations will
have to be considered and I hope the
agencies will be guided by them.
We want to allay forever the fears of
the ignorant and uninformed as to the
source of recommendations for the
standards of allowable and permissible
radiation from any of these reactors.
We want the people to know what the
expert bodies recommend and not
have to rely only on bureaucrats or
administrators in Government. We
want to go to the source of the great-
est fund of wisdom in this field that
there is in the world, because some of
these people are also members of the
International Commission on Radiolog-
ical Protection and these bodies work
in harmony. So, we can go no further
than that toward protecting the people
of the United States.
I believe the people will place their
trust in the most eminent bodies of sci-
entists that exist in the world.
I hope they will refuse to be scared
and deceived by the few sensation-seek-
ing, biased pseudo-scientists that are
obstructing and delaying the produc-
tion of electricity.
I also wish to say to many of the new
converts to antipollution causes that
they should weigh carefully their oppo-
sition to generating plants whether
they are fossil fueled or nuclear. They
should consider the futility of solving
all of our environmental pollution
problems without an abundant supply
of electrical energy.
Mr. MIZE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
[p. 34314]
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield to the
gentleman from Kansas.
Mr. MIZE. Mr. Chairman, coming
from the State of Kansas, I can say
we are quite interested in the disposi-
tion of atomic waste, as it appears
possibly one of the best places to put
these atomic wastes is in the saltbeds,
which qualify as a sort of garbage pail
for this material.
My question is, when a license is
-------
882
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
granted one of these privately-owned
nuclear powerplants, who has the re-
sponsibility of determining where that
waste material will be taken?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. The Atomic En-
ergy Commission has the responsibility
for the health and safety of the people
of America in that respect as in other
radiological respects. The responsi-
bility has been placed in them by
statute.
Mr. MIZE. With the AEC?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes.
Mr. MIZE. I thank the gentleman
from California.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield to the
gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I ap-
preciate the gentleman yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the accolades
and commendations to the members of
the committee are deserved for bring-
ing in these changes in the Atomic En-
ergy Act of 1954. They are well
deserved.
I have studied the bill, and I have
read the report. I am personally in-
terested in this, and I admire the work
of the committee. There is just one
thing that bothers me a little about
this, and I wonder if the gentleman
would expound on it a little more than
he did in his obvious haste to dispatch
our business today. That is, the first
concept, the finding of practical value.
This committee and this House are
very familiar with the need and the
formulae for developing cost-benefit
ratios. I full well understand the ex-
clusions that are earned in many of
the research and development projects
for the Atomic Energy Commission
and laboratories and so forth, but it
would seem to me on the face of it,
reading no deeper than I have and not
being privy to an intense study of the
hearings, that a little explanation is in
order as to why we are eliminating the
practical value concept right at the
time when we should be applying it to
each commercial firm that we want to
license.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. It is a little dif-
ficult to explain, but I think the gen-
tleman will understand. Congress is
eliminating the need for an adminis-
trative finding of practical value. We
are not waiting for the AEC to make
this finding. We are eliminating the
necessity for making a finding of prac-
tical value, because in the judgment of
this committee, in a real sense, these
nuclear reactors have achieved practi-
cal value. They are being bought,
without Government subsidy, by utili-
ties all over the Nation, and therefore
we feel these reactors should come un-
der regular commercial practices.
It is a little bit confusing, because it
was a part of the act of 1954, which did
not envision arriving so soon at the
point we are now at. It is in effect a
stamp of approval by the Congress
that no longer should these reactors be
considered as research and develop-
ment reactors and therefore potentially
eligible for research and development
subsidies. Light water reactors have
arrived. They are now of utility and
commercial value.
Mr. HALL. The gentleman is con-
vinced that he has, in the wording of
the legislation before us, done just
that?
Mr. HOLIFIELLD. That is right.
Mr. HALL. The gentleman has ex-
plained it adequately to me. As I un-
derstand it, we are eliminating the
double negative, having proved through
the years since 1954 that this is of
commercial value, and hereafter li-
censing will be direct but they will
still be subject to the antitrust laws,
et cetera.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes. It will take
its place in private industry.
Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. I yield to the
gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. EDMONDSON. I have just one
point. In making this change in the
law the committee is not recommend-
ing and the Congress is not in any way
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
883
relaxing or lifting any of the safety
requirements which are in the law?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. No. The gentle-
man makes a valuable contribution.
The AEC is still responsible for the
radiological safety and health of the
people and will continue, under this
committee's jurisdiction, to watch that
very closely. I am glad the gentleman
brought up that point.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the re-
mainder of my time.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Chairman. I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
Mr. Chairman, the distinguished
chairman of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy has ably summarized
the principal features of H.R. 18679.
I would like to add a few brief com-
ments.
In my judgment, each of the three
principal features of this bill is timely
and important.
The advisability of removing the re-
quirement of a finding of practical
value before nuclear powerplants can
be commercially licensed has been en-
dorsed by every single witness who
testified before our committee during
the hearings held last year and this
year on this subject. No one needs it
or wants it. There is simply no reason
to retain it. It is not only useless, but
has grown into a major source of ir-
ritation and controversy—preventing,
as it has, the commercial licensing of
nuclear facilities that are being indus-
trially or commercially employed. The
bill excises this licensing wart.
Opening the door to routine commer-
cial licensing involved a close look at a
related provision of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954; namely, subsection 105 (c).
This provision, normally characterized
as prelicensing antitrust review, is
written simply in terms of advice from
the Attorney General. And the na-
ture and scope of the advice are de-
scribed in a broad-brush, imprecise,
clause. The committee concluded that
it was imperative to clarify and revise
the present text of subsection 105(c).
H.R. 18679 does this. The proposed
revision of subsection 105(c) in the
bill clarifies the antitrust review stand-
ard and explicitly describes the Com-
mission's authority and responsibility
in relation to advice from the Attor-
ney General. The committee and its
staff spent many hours on the stand-
ard and the procedures described in
the clarified, revised version of subsec-
tion 105(c). The resulting product is
a fair, reasonable compromise which
the committee unanimously approved.
Frankly, I do not like each and every
ingredient aspect of subsection 105 (c)
in the bill, and I do not know a single
committee member who does. How-
ever, there are many aspects which I
do favor, and this, too, represents the
opinion of each of my colleagues on
the committee. In its totality—as a
package product—revised subsection
105 (c) represents a desirable improve-
ment of the present provisions, and I,
together with all the members of the
joint committee, support it.
As for the aspects that I favor, let
me briefly point to a few:
First. Paragraph (1) of subsection
(c) provides that the Attorney Gen-
eral's advice must include an explan-
atory statement as to the reasons or
basis therefor.
Second. Paragraph (2) of subsec-
tion (c) calls for the antitrust review
in connection with the application for
a construction permit, and provides
that it is not to be repeated at the
operating license stage "unless the
Commission determines such review is
advisable on the ground that signifi-
cant changes in the licensee's activities
or proposed activities have occurred
subsequent to the previous review by
the Attorney General and the Commis-
sion under this subsection in connection
with the construction permit for the
facility."
Third. By virtue of subsection 102
(b), AEC licensss issued prior to en-
actment of the bill into law maintain
their status as 104(b) licenses.
Fourth. The report accompanying
-------
884
LEGAL COMPILATION—EADIATION
the bill clearly expresses the important
intention that the standard applies to
the acth'ities of the license applicant.
As stated in the report:
The activities of others, such as designers,
fabricators, manufacturers, or suppliers of
materials or services who, under some kind of
direct or indirect contractual relationship may
be furnishing equipment, materials or services
for the licensed facility would not constitute
"the activities under the license" unless the
license applicant is considerably involved in
activities of others that fall within the ambit
of the standard.
Thus, unless the license applicant is
seemingly in a collusion or conspiracy
situation with respect to suppliers or
others, its license application would
not be encumbered or held up by any
antitrust considerations pertaining to
the activities of others.
Fifth. Paragraph (8) of subsection
(c) enables the Commission to avoid
delaying the issuance of licenses in
certain cases, pending the antitrust
review. The committee intends that
this flexibility be benevolently and
sensibly used to help avoid unnecessary
delays in the scheduling of needed
power plants. In connection with par-
agraph (8), I must mention for the
record another important com-
[p. 34315]
mittee concern and related intention.
It is not intended that a construction
permit proceeding that is in progress
at the time the bill becomes law be be-
gun anew procedurally because of the
new section 103 status. That would be
foolish and self-defeating in this time
of power shortages, or for that matter
at any other time. We want to see this
licensing procedure as an aid in obtain-
ing a safe and adequate supply of
power to the people—not an imped-
iment. We want no snags whatsoever
to cause delay because of licensing. We
expect no lack of attention to this mat-
ter whatsoever on the part of the
Atomic Energy Commission. Rather,
it is intended that the Commission, by
rule or regulation, provide for a sen-
sible transition into the section 103 li-
censing posture so that, to the fullest
extent reasonably practicable, the
measures and substance of the licensing
proceeding theretofore conducted will
continue to be recognized and utilized
and delay held to a minimum.
The purpose here is to avoid hard-
ships as specified at the top of page 32
of our report on this bill. Now, hard-
ships are not limited to, say, situations
where the utility involved might risk
bankruptcy by any delay. What the
committee is talking about here is
things that might delay or impede
bringing necessary and desirable power
to the utility system. In short, hard-
ship in the sense of this bill has a very
broad and liberal connotation.
I want to make it perfectly clear that
the principle of no impediment and no
delay applicable to the transition to the
provisions of this bill applies equally to
pending construction permit applica-
tions and to pending operating license
proceedings. There is need for expe-
diency in both instances.
Sixth. The change in section 10 of
the bill introduces greater flexibility
in the composition of atomic safety
and licensing boards. This flexibility
should be utilized in accordance wii!»
the Commission's discretion; it is not
intended for example, that the Com-
mission's judgment respecting the qual-
ifications of members of a board should
be opened to challenge in relation to
the nature of the matters that may be
considered in the antitrust review.
Nor, for example, is it intended that
all three members of a board must be
present at all times during the conduct
of a board's business. Incidentally,
Chairman HOLIFIELD and I have been
much concerned with the apparent re-
cent trend toward procrastination, and
administrative and legal roadblocks, in
the overall licensing system. We are
worried about the apparently deterio-
rating licensing situation, and have
recently written a letter to Dr. Seaborg
which I would like to have inserted in
the RECORD at this point.
Before leaving this feature, I, too,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
885
want to join Chairman HOLIFIELD in
emphasizing the fact that this whole
antitrust review in the Commission's
licensing procedure in no way extends,
impairs, amends, or affects any of the
antitrust laws or prevents their ap-
plication. This major point is under-
written by subsection 105 (a) of the
Atomic Energy Act, which remains
unchanged. By like token, this bill in
no way enlarges the substance of the
antitrust review in any respect over
the provisions of the existing law for
commercial licenses. What we are try-
ing to do is clear away procedural un-
certainties in the manner in which both
the Justice Department and the AEC
are to proceed.
The second feature of the bill—the
statutory basis for the Commission's
charges for uranium enriching services
—is not really directed at the recently
announced increase in price from $26
to $28.70 per separative unit. The
price increase may represent an ap-
propriate price adjustment in the light
of the criteria for pricing that the
Commission has consistently used since
subsection 161 (v) became law in 1964.
The bill merely changes several
words in subsection 161 (v) to reaffirm
with greater clarity the underlying in-
tention, as evidenced by the legislative
history and as correctly discerned
by the Comptroller General in his re-
cent report, that AEC's charges are to
be based on the recovery of Govern-
ment costs averaged over a period of
years. AEC's new criteria not only
conflicted with the congressionally in-
tended application of subsection 161
(v), but they are unnecessarily vague
and essentially meaningless. They
really do not serve any useful purpose
and they provide the appearance of
potential for maladministration or mis-
chief.
The third feature of the bill—to uti-
lize on a continuing and comprehensive
basis the unique talents of the National
Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements and the National Acad-
emy of Sciences—I view as even more
uniformly acceptable and less contro-
versial these days than motherhood.
The Federal Radiation Council, which
we recognize statutorily in subsection
274(h) of the Atomic Energy Act has
not really done its job as effectively as
was originally contemplated by the
committee and the Congress. The ab-
olition of the Council, as a result of
section 11 of the bill which emphasizes
the need to enlist our most preeminent
scientists in the determination of ap-
propriate basic radiation protection
standards, coincides with the Presi-
dent's intention to abolish the Council
under the Reorganization Plan No. 3
on which the House took some favor-
able action earlier this week.
Mr. Chairman, in summary, the leg-
islation before us will do three things.
First, it will eliminate, as Members
have heard, the practical value require-
ment found in the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954. Sixteen years ago, when we
passed this act, the state of the tech-
nology as to generating nuclear power
was rather new, and every license that
has been issued for a nuclear power
reactor in this country has been issued
as a research and development or ex-
perimental reactor license.
The act provided that when nu-
clear power achieved practical value
and practical value was found to exist
—not by the Congress but by the AEC
—then new plants were to be licensed
under commercial procedures, and
when that occurred, as a prelicensing
requirement, there was to be an anti-
trust investigation by the Justice De-
partment to make certain that in this
large new technology everyone had an
opportunity to enjoy some of the bene-
fits, principally because the Govern-
ment had put so much money into it.
Technology has proceeded, and now
it is quite obvious that nuclear power
has commercial value, and this seems
to have overtaken the present law, and
we propose to take this anachronism
out of the law. As we do so, that
brings in this feature about prelicens-
ing investigation from an antitrust
-------
886
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
standpoint. We are not trying to take
it out. What we are trying to do is
to specify the procedures which will be
employed for the first time, both by
the Justice Department and by the
AEC, so that the licensing of this great
source of power will not be impeded,
and power can go on the line and be
available to our people.
In short, we are trying to take a step
forward here to avoid blackouts and
brownouts so far as nuclear power is
concerned. I believe we have done it in
a careful way.
I wish to congratulate the chairman
of the Joint Committee on Atomic En-
ergy for being able to negotiate this
through the shoals of what might
otherwise have been a private power
versus public power fight, on account
of the various interests involved. He
skillfully avoided that.
Congratulations can also be accepted
by the other members of the committee
for negotiating this in such a way that
the legislation could be brought to the
floor without disagreement among the
Republicans or the Democrats, the Sen-
ate Members or the House Members, so
far as this legislation is concerned.
The second thing that the bill does is
simply to say that since Uncle Sam is
the only source of enriched uranium for
the fuel for the Nation's power reac-
tors and, in fact, the world's power
reactors, this enriched uranium from
the AEC's great gaseous diffusion
plants will be made available on the
usual basis. When Uncle Sam per-
forms a service he is supposed to be
paid for it, in an amount equivalent
to the cost of doing business, and no
more than that. That is quite a sen-
sible way to operate. There apparently
was some lack of clarity with respect
to this requirement that the bill here
seeks to dispel and make clear.
The third thing, as has been pointed
out, is that this bill simply says who-
ever in the U.S. Government—it is
about to be this new Environmental
Protection Agency—whoever it is—
that establishes the basic standards for
radiation protection of the general pub-
lic relative to nuclear activities shall
do so not on any arbitrary basis. It
will not just be left up to some bureau-
crat who is a good paper shuffler but
really does not know much about ra-
diation considerations. Whoever it is
who has responsibility to set Federal
standards, is required by this Congress
at least to go to two places for advice—
the two places with the most qualified
experts in the world for proper advice
on this very important subject. One is
the National Academy of Sciences and
the other the National Council on Ra-
diation Protection and Measurements.
[p. 34316]
This is an excellent piece of legisla-
tion, in my opinion, and I trust that we
will have the support of the House
when the time comes for a vote.
(Mr. McCULLOCH, at the request of
Mr. HOSMER, was given permission to
extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD.)
Mr. McCULLOCH. Mr. Chairman,
I rise to associate myself with the
views so clearly articulated by Mr.
HOSMER.
As a member of the joint committee,
I know first-hand of the need for H.R.
18679 and of the careful work of our
committee in arriving at the legislative
proposal now before us.
I particularly want to underscore Mr.
HOSMER'S remarks about the fair and
reasonable compromise that revised
subsection 105 (c) represents. This
was a most difficult item for the com-
mittee to chart precisely. Potential
issues in the sensitive, public-private
power area seemed to be lurking be-
hind each seeming suitable alternative.
But the committee persevered, and ul-
timately unanimously arrived at a
reasonable, workable compromise pro-
cedure which, I think, all fair-minded
persons and groups should consider
fair, nondiscriminatory, and appro-
priate.
I fully support H.R. 18679.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
887
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOSMER. I am glad to yield to
the gentleman from Illinois, a member
of the committee.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. When
this matter was presented to the Com-
mittee on Rules yesterday, in a pre-
pared statement that was delivered at
that time to our committee by the dis-
tinguished chairman of the Joint Com-
mittee on Atomic Energy (Mr. HOLI-
FIELD) he said:
The ranking minority member of the Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy is invariably the
essence of sagacity, perspicacity, wit, aplomb,
and brevity.
He has earned that accolade, which
was given him on that occasion, by his
performance in the well of the House
this afternoon.
I should like, as a member of the
Joint Committee, to join him in support
of this legislation.
Mr. HOSMER. Let me say I think
the gentleman was wise to get unani-
mous consent to revise and extend his
remarks, because he went pretty far
out on a limb with respect to the gen-
tleman in the well.
Mr. KYL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HOSMER. I am glad to yield
to the gentleman.
Mr. KYL. I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
I would like to take advantage of
this occasion and take advantage of the
sagacity and perspicacity and the eru-
dition of the gentleman in the well to
get an answer to a couple of questions.
Permit me to premise it in this fash-
ion. We now have in the space of about
25 miles on one of our Great Lakes one
atomic energy power generation plant
about ready to go into operation and
another under construction. The peo-
ple there or some of the people there
are considerably worried that the warm
water generated by these plants will
keep the ice shelf from freezing along
the shore and therefore the beaches
and dunes and properties might be de-
stroyed by winter storms. They also
worry about the atmospheric questions,
and so on.
My question is specifically this: Are
we actually progressing in the method
of obtaining efficiency from the heat
generation in these plants so that in
fact the volume of hot water is being
significantly reduced?
Mr. HOSMER. Let me answer the
gentleman in this way: Any time you
produce electric power you are convert-
ing one form of energy into another
form of energy. The process is not
100-percent efficient. Today in the
plants that are fired by coal and oil
the efficiency is about 40 percent. That
means that 60 percent of the B.t.u.'s
out of the fuel that is burned goes into
the environment.
And, generally, they either go up a
stack or they will go into some con-
denser cooling water. In the case of a
conventionally-fired plant they go both
ways. In the case of nuclear plants,
we have a new technology whereby we
are able to get about 35 percent effi-
ciency which means a few more B.t.u.'s
dispersed into the environment. Since
you do not discharge heat through a
stack in a nuclear plant essentially all
of the waste heat goes into the con-
denser cooling water. So, you are put-
ting more of the heat into these areas
by a nuclear plant than by a conven-
tional plant. But as efficiency im-
proves, of course, it will equalize.
Moreover, this heated water is dis-
persed as a result of the cold water
going into these areas and the overall
ambient temperature will be about the
same.
The three plants which the gentle-
man from Iowa mentioned in the area
of Lake Michigan together undoubtedly
put into Lake Michigan a minuscule
quantity of heat compared to that
which the sun daily puts into Lake
Michigan just by shining on it. But
instead of putting it all over the lake
they put it in at these three relatively
restricted locations, and in that im-
mediate location there is some heating
of the water over the normal tempera-
-------
888
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
ture of the lake. However, as it
spreads out, it equalizes the ambient
temperature.
Unfortunately, the Federal Govern-
ment has informally proposed a stand-
ard that the ambient temperature can
only be exceeded by 1 degree in dis-
charging water at any particular point.
That, of course, is virtually impossible.
When it rains, the city of Chicago
could not discharge into Lake Michigan
the water from its storm drains under
that regulation, because that storm
water is at least 3 or 4 degrees above
the ambient temperature of the lake.
So, you would always have to pay some
price to get rid of the storm water in
the city of Chicago, and you have to
pay some price by way of some poten-
tial changes in natural conditions in
order to have powTer. However, net
value should always be considered in
regard to the price.
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOSMER. I yield to the gentle-
man from New York.
Mr. WOLFF. On that same ques-
tion there appears an article in the
New York Times that states as follows:
The National Environmental Policy Act,
signed last year with great fanfare, will be
of very little use unless President Nixon tells
his subordinates that it means exactly what
it says. The Atomic Energy Commission, for
one, has a notion that in licensing nuclear
plants it has no authority even to consider
a threat of thermal pollution, though the Act
clearly enjoins all Government agencies to weigh
environmental factors in their decisions.
Are the factors of thermal pollution
considered by the Atomic Energy Com-
mission in the licensing of a plant?
Mr. HOSMER. Let me say to the
gentleman that the New York Times in
this case, as often in other cases, in
search of some desirable objective,
leaves a lot to be desired in the way it
approaches these matters.
In the licensing procedure that has
been established under the law and the
procedure that has been followed up
until the passage of the National En-
vironmental Policy Act, the AEC was
directed, authorized and had the power
in its licensing proceedings to consider
only matters having to do with radia-
tion. But let me say that with the
passage of this Environmental Policy
Act, all governmental agencies, includ-
ing the AEC, are required to take into
consideration all environmental mat-
ters in connection with the major ac-
tions which they might take. The AEC
interpreted the licensing of a nuclear
powerplant as a major action and,
therefore, it does, under this law, refer
the papers and the situation to the
Environmental Quality Council, the
Department of the Interior, and all
other interested Federal agencies.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. And to the States
involved.
Mr. HOSMER. It is referred not
only to these Federal agencies but to
essentially any agency that has any
relevant expertise at all for its recom-
mendation with respect to the particu-
lar licensing procedure.
So, I say that the New York Times
is substantially in error. It is way off
course in this summary.
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOSMER. I will yield further
to the gentleman in just one moment,
but first I want to yield to the gentle-
man from California.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding, and
I want to supplement what the gentle-
man says, because Congress passed the
Water Quality Improvement Act of
1970 which continues the States' au-
thority to control the water quality,
and that includes whether it is too hot
or too cold, as well as too dirty. The
AEC must, as the gentleman says,
take into consideration the Water
Quality Improvement Act as well as
the National Environmental Policy
Act, which this Congress has passed.
Mr. HOSMER. The gentleman is
entirely correct.
Mr. WOLFF. If the gentleman will
yield, on that basis there seems to be
somewhat of a conflict between the two
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
889
gentlemen.
Mr. HOSMER. There is no conflict
[p. 34317]
whatsoever with respect to the advice
of one of the Government agencies.
The AEC follows those procedures with
respect to the Water Quality Improve-
ment Act, and it is met by the certifi-
cation by the States of reasonable
assurance that water quality standards
will not be violated as is spelled out
under that act.
Mr. WOLFF. If the gentleman will
yield further, in the hearings that have
been conducted at Shoreham, the hear-
ing board referred over to the State
the question of thermal pollution.
Now, by referring it over to the State,
am I to infer from that that this re-
leases the Atomic Energy Commission
from further consideration?
Mr. HOSMER. Of course not. The
matter was referred to the State, inso-
far as the procedures were applicable,
and its advice and certification are re-
quired under the Water Quality Im-
provement Act. The AEC on this same
question also referred it over to the
Interior Department and to other agen-
cies and departments of the U.S. Gov-
ernment for such relevant advice on
this same point that they were qualified
to give in connection with this licensing
procedure.
Mr. WOLFF. The hearing board
will take into consideration, then, the
advice of a State in making the final
determination, or take into considera-
tion the thermal pollution involved?
Mr. HOSMER. I think there should
be a taking into consideration of en-
vironmental matters involved vis-a-vis
the purpose and the need for a particu-
lar plant to produce electricity to meet
the requirements of the community. In
other words, there should be a balanc-
ing job in which nobody presumably
will be allowed to get away with any-
thing more than is reasonable in rela-
tion to the modus vivendi that has to
be established in a high-energy society
between the production of that energy
and the environmental elements that
are involved.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. If the gentleman
will yield further, the AEC as a condi-
tion of granting a license requires that
the applicant provide certification from
the State in which the facility is lo-
cated that it has met the water quality
standards, and that came from the
Committee on Public Works headed by
the gentleman from California (Mr.
JOHNSON).
Mr. HOSMER. I thank the gentle-
man for verifying exactly where the
procedure is undergone.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOSMER. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Illinois.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr.
Chairman, I thank the gentleman from
California for yielding.
I was going to merely amplify the
point that I think has already now been
made by the chairman of the commit-
tee, that in the actual writing of the
construction permit the Atomic Energy
Commission actually does write into
each construction permit that is issued,
each permit and operating license for
a nuclear plant, an expressed condi-
tion that within 3 years of the date of
this Water Quality Improvement Act
that the licensee must submit to the
AEC certification from the State in-
volved that the discharges from the
plant are or are planned to be within
the applicable water quality standards,
as they are promulgated by the State
or other authority. So that is an ex-
pressed written condition in the li-
censing permit granted by the Atomic
Energy Commission.
Mr/HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOSMER. I yield to the gentle-
man.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. The gentle-
man referred in his remarks, and the
chairman of the committee, to the pre-
licensing antitrust investigation by the
Department of Justice.
My question is: Is this done prior to
-------
890
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
the construction permit or is it to be
done prior to the operation permit?
Mr. HOSMER. My answer to that
is in the report and it explains it. In
connection with the application for the
construction permit, that is the initial
action. The antitrust investigation is
made in the scope that is provided in
the Atomic Energy Act.
Then, if the construction permit is
granted and the antitrust procedures
have been met, it will take up to 5 or 6
years for the plants to be built. As it
nears the end of that construction pe-
riod, the utility will go in for an oper-
ating license.
Now, unless there has been a signifi-
cant change in the antitrust circum-
stances, it is not intended that there be
a review de novo of the antitrust con-
siderations. Only if there has been a
substantial change in this regard,
would it be intended that there be an-
other investigation.
As a matter of fact, with respect to
the pending applications for construc-
tion permits, but where the permit is
not yet issued, the Atomic Energy Com-
mission will establish such procedures
to assure that this whole business does
not have to be de novo, but that the
equities on either side can be met with-
out delaying the issuance of the con-
struction permit.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOSMER. I am delighted to
yield to the gentleman.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I certainly
thank the gentleman for the clarifica-
tion.
Perhaps the gentleman now in the
well may have surmised that my ques-
tion was prompted by the experience of
two plants in my district in the State
of Michigan. To the best of my knowl-
edge, there never was any objection
from anybody at the time the construc-
tion permit was granted. But now
that the utility seeks an operation per-
mit, the question of thermal pollution
has completely tied up one of these
plants. My concern was that this anti-
trust investigation would not amount
to the same thing so that the utility
could be permitted to expend millions
of dollars in the construction of the
plant.
Mr. HOSMER. The gentleman's
concern is certainly well founded. We
are trying to accomplish this with re-
spect to this antitrust business.
The objections that have been made
in the plants that the gentleman has re-
ferred to, have been made on any
ground that could possibly be dredged
up by people who either are just dead
set against any nuclear power or who
want to hold those particular plants
for ransom for the installation of cool-
ing towers and for the installation of
certain very sophisticated type of ra-
diation protection equipment.
Mr. Chairman, I have no further re-
quests for time.
Mr. PRICE of Illinois. Mr. Chair-
man, concern has been expressed that
this legislation would permit the
Atomic Energy Commission to exempt
a license applicant from the necessity
of correcting an antitrust abuse in-
cluded in a Commission finding where
the Commission finds that the need for
power in the area or other factors are
overriding.
The committee, as stated in the re-
port, expects the Commission normally
to take care of both the need for en-
ergy as well as to remedy the situation
where there has been an affirmative
finding under paragraph (5). There-
port on page 31 in this respect states:
While the Commission has the flexibility to
consider and weigh the various interests and
objectives which may be involved, the committee
does not expect that an affirmative finding under
paragraph (5) would normally need to be over-
riden by Commission findings and actions under
paragiaph (6). The Committee believes that,
except in an extraordinary situation. Commis-
sion-imposed conditions should be able to
eliminate the concerns entailed in any affirma-
tive finding undei paragraph (5) while, at the
same time, accommodating the other public
interest concerns found pursuant to paragraph
(6). Normally, the committee expects the
Commission's actions under paragraphs (5)
and (6) will harmonize both antitiust and such
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
891
other public interest considerations as may be
involved.
Considerations involving "the need
for power in the affected area" or
"other factors" will not permit the
Commission to ignore an adverse anti-
trust finding under paragraph (5) of
subsection 105 (c).
Paragraph (6) provides that the
Commission may issue a license which
is so conditioned as to require subse-
quent corrective action in regard to
antitrust problems while allowing the
construction or operation of the fa-
cilities by the applicant to go forward.
Paragraph (6) gives the Commission
the opportunity to help cure deficiencies
from an antitrust standpoint while en-
abling timely construction and opera-
tion of nuclear power facilities. On
the other hand, there may be situations
where the Commission might conclude
that the public interest would be better
served by delaying the issuance of a
license until antitrust problems are
solved.
The bill provides for the creation of
a separate board to hear antitrust is-
sues, and as the report on the bill notes:
The committee anticipates that all the func-
tions contemplated by these paragraphs would
be carried out before the radiological health and
safety review and determination process is com-
pleted, so that the entire licensing piocedure
is not further extended in time by leason of the
added antitiust review function.
Paragraph (5) does not preclude in
any manner the right of the Depart-
ment of Jvstice to pursue antitrust
suits, civil
[p. 34318]
or criminal in nature, in the courts,
whether or not there are involved par-
ties, facts, or issues that were, or are
being, considered by the Commission
and nothing in the bill would preclude
or limit the intervention or participa-
tion of the Department of Justice in
proceedings before other regulatory
agencies where antitrust issues are in-
volved, and irrespective of whether
they involve parties, facts, or issues
pertinent to Commission proceeding.
The intent in this regard is made
clear in the report on the bill which
states:
The bill does not affect in any way the
important features contained in the provisions
of subsections 105 a. and 105 b. of the 1954 act.
These subsections remain separate, distinct and
wholly unaffected by the proposed revised
subsection 105 c.
The CHAIRMAN. There being no fur-
ther requests for time, the Clerk will
read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the Umted States of America
in Congress assembled, That paragiaph (4) of
subsection 31 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended, is amended to read as follows:
"(4) utilization of special nuclear material,
atomic eneigy, and radioactive material and
piocesses entailed in the utilization or pro-
duction of atomic energy or such material for
aJl other purposes, including industrial or com-
mercial uses, the generation of usable energy,
and the demonstration of advances in the com-
mercial or industrial application of atomic
eneigy; and".
SEC. 2. The second sentence of section 56 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is
amended to read as follows: "The Commission
shall also establish for such periods of time as it
may deem necessary, but not to exceed ten years
as to any such period, guaranteed purchase
prices for uranium enriched in the isotope 233
produced in a nucleai reactor by a person
licensed under section 103 or section 104 and
delivered to the Commission within the period
of the guaiantee."
SEC. 3. Section 102 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, is amended to read
as follows:
"SEC. 102. UTILIZATION AND PRODUCTION
FACILITIES FOR INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL
PURPOSES.—
"a. Except as provided in subsections b. and
c., 01 otherwise specifically authorized by law,
any license hereafter issued for a utilization or
production facility for industrial or commercial
purposes shall be issued puisuant to section 103.
"b. Any license hereafter issued for a utiliza-
tion or production facility for industrial or
commercial purposes, the construction or opera-
tion of which was licensed pursuant to subsec-
tion 104 b. piior to enactment into law of this
subsection, shall be issued under subsection
104 b.
"c. Any license for a utilization or production
acility for industrial or commeicial products
constructed or operated under an ariangement
with the Commission entered into under the
voopeiative Power Reactor Demonstration Pro-
gram shall, except as otherwise specifically
-------
892
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
required by applicable law, be issued under
subsection 104 b."
SEC. 4. The first sentence of subsection 103 a.
of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended,
is amended to read as follows: "The Commission
is authorized to issue licenses to persons apply-
ing therefor to tiansfer or leceive in interstate
commei'ce, manufactuie, produce, transfer,
acquit e, possess, use, import, or expoi t under
the terms of an agieement for cooperation ar-
ranged pursuant to section 123, utilization 01
production facilities for industiial 01 commei-
cial purposes",
SEC. 5. Subsection 104 b. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended
to read as follows:
"b. As provided for in subsection 102 b. or
102 c., or where specifically authorized by law,
the Commission is authorized to issue licenses
under this subsection to persons applying there-
for for utilization and production facilities for
industrial and commercial purposes. In issuing
licenses under this subsection, the Commission
shall impose the minimum amount of such regu-
lations and terms of license as will peimit the
Commission to fulfill its obligations under this
Act."
SEC. 6. Subsection 105 c. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended
to read as follows:
"c. (1) The Commission shall promptly
transmit to the Attorney General a copy of
any license application provided for in para-
graph (2) of this subsection, and a copy of
any written request provided for in paragraph
(3) of this subsection; and the Attorney General
shall, within a leasonable time, but in no event
to exceed 180 day s after receiving a copy of
such application or written request, render such
advice to the Commission as he detei mines to be
appropriate in regard to the finding to be made
by the Commission pursuant to paragraph (5)
of this subsection. Such advice shall include
an explanatory statement as to the reasons 01
basis therefor.
"(2) Paragraph (1) of this subsection shall
apply to an application for a license to con-
struct or operate a utilization or production
facility under section 103: Provided, however,
That paragraph (1) shall not apply to an
application for a license to operate a utilization
or production facility for which a construction
permit was issued under section 103 unless the
Commission determines such review is advisable
on the ground that significant changes in the
licensee's activities or proposed activities have
occurred subsequent to the pieview review by
the Attorney General and the Commission under
this subsection in connection with the constiuc-
tion permit for the facility.
"(3) With respect to any Commission permit
for the construction of a utilization or produc-
tion facility issued puisuant to subsection 104 b.
prior to the enactment into law of this subsec-
tion, any person who intervened or who sought
by timely written notice to the Commission to
intervene in the construction permit proceeding
for the facility to obtain a determination of
antitrust considerations or to advance a juris-
dictional basis foi such determination shall have
the right, upon a written request to the Com-
mission, to obtain an antitrust review under
this section of the application for an opeiating
license. Such wiitten request shall be made
within 25 da>s aftei the date of initial Commis-
sion publication in the Federal Register of
notice of the filing of an application for an
operating license for the facility 01 the date of
enactment into law of this subsection, whichever
is later.
" (4) Upon the i equest of the Attorney
Geneial, the Commission shall furnish or cause
to be furnished such information as the Attorney
Geneial determines to be appropriate foi the
advice called for in paragraph (1) of this
subsection.
"(5) Promptly upon leceipt of the Attorney
General's advice, the Commission shall publish
the advice in the Fedeial Register. Where the
Attoiney Geneial advises that theie may be
adveise antitrust aspects and recommends that
there be a hearing, the Attorney General or his
designee may paiticipate as a party in the pro-
ceedings thereafter held by the Commission on
such licensing matter in connection with the
subject matter of his advice. The Commission
shall give due consideration to the advice re-
ceived from the Attorney General and to such
evidence as may be piovided duiing the pro-
ceedings in connection with such subject matter,
and shall make a finding as to whether the
activities under the license would create or main-
tain a situation inconsistent with the antitrust
laws as specified in subsection 105 a.
"(6) In the event the Commission's finding
undei paiagraph (5) is in the affirmative, the
Commission shall also consider, in determining
whether the license should be issued or continued,
such othei factors, including the need for power
in the affected area, as the Commission in its
judgment deems necessary to protect the public
interest. On the basis of its findings, the Com-
mission shall have the authority to issue or
continued a license as applied for, to refuse to
issue a license, to i escind a license or amend
it, and to issue a license with such conditions
as it deems appropriate,
"(7) The Commission, with the approval of
the Attorney Geneial, may except from any of
the requirements of this subsection such classes
or types of licenses as the Commission may
determine would not significantly affect the
applicant's activities under the antitrust laws
as specified in subsection 105 a.
" (8) With respect to any application for
a construction permit on file at the time of
enactment into law of this subsection, which
permit would be for issuance under section 103,
and with respect to any application for an
operating license in connection with which a
written request for an antitrust review is made
as provided for in paragraph (3), the Com-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
893
mission, after consultation with the Attorney
General, may, upon determination that such
action is necessary in the public interest to
avoid unnecessary delay, establish by rule or
order periods for Commission notification and
receipt of advice differing from those set forth
above and may issue a construction permit or
operating license in advance of considei ation
of and findings with respect to the matters
covered in this subsection: Provided, That any
construction permit or operating license so
issued shall contain such conditions as the
Commission deems appiopriate to assure that
any subsequent findings and oiders of the Com-
mission with respect to such mattei s will be
given full force and effect."
SEC. 7. Subsection 161 n. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended
to read as follows:
"n. delegate to the General Manager or other
officers of the Commission any of those functions
assigned to it under this Act except those
specified in section 51, 57 b., 61, 108, 123, 145 b.
(with respect to the determination of those
persons to whom the Commission may reveal
Restricted Data in the national interest), 145 f.,
and 161 a.;"
SEC. 8. The first proviso in subsection 161
v. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended to read as follows:
Provided, That (i) prices for services under
paragraph (A) of this subsection shall be
established on a nondiscriminatory basis;
(ii) prices for services under paragraph (B)
of this subsection shall be no less than prices
under paragraph (A) of this subsection; and
(iii) any prices established under this sub-
section shall be on a basis of recovery of the
Government's costs over a reasonable period
of time:"
SEC. 9. Subsection 182 c. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended
to read as follows:
"c. The Commission shall not issue any license
under section 103 for a utilization or production
facility for the generation of commercial power
until it has given notice in writing to such
regulatory agency as may have jurisdiction
over the rates and services incident to the pro-
posed activity; until it has published notice of
the application in
[p. 34319]
such trade or news publications as the Com-
mission deems appropriate to give reasonable
notice to municipalities, private utilities, public
bodies, and cooperatives which might have a
potential interest in such utilization or produc-
tion facility; and until it has published notice
of such application once each week for four
consecutive weeks in the Federal Register, and
until four weeks after the last notice,"
SEC. 10. The first sentence of subsection
191 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, is amended to read as follows:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of 7(a) and
8 (a) of the Administrative Procedure Act, the
Commission is authorized to establish one or
more atomic safety and licensing boards, each
comprised of three members, one of whom shall
be qualified in the conduct of administrative pro-
ceedings and two of whom shall have such
technical or other qualifications as the Com-
mission deems appropriate to the issues to be
decided, to conduct such healings as the Com-
mission may direct and make such intermediate
or final decisions as the Commission may author-
ize with respect to the granting, suspending,
i evoking or amending of any license or author-
ization under the provisions of this Act, any
other provision of law, or any legulation of the
Commission issued thereunder."
SEC. 11. Subsection 274 h. of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, is amended
to read as follows:
"h. Any Government agency designated by
the President is hereby authorized and directed
to enter into and administer an airangement
with the National Council on Radiation Protec-
tion and Measurements for a comprehensive
and continuing review of basic radiation protec-
tion standards, and the scientific bases therefor,
pertinent to the health and safety aspects of
exposure to radioactivity resulting from the
development, use or control of atomic energy,
and an arrangement with the National Academy
of Sciences for a comprehensive and continuing
review of the biological effects of radiation on
man and the ecology in order to provide infor-
mation pertinent to basic radiation protection
standards. The respective scopes of the ar-
rangements may, in the discretion of the Presi-
dent or the designated Goveinment agency, also
encompass exposure to the effects of radiation
from souices other than the development, use
or control of atomic energy. The respective
arrangements shall require—
"(1) the conduct by the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements of a
full-scale review of the radiation protection
guides presently in effect by virtue of the recom-
mendations of the Federal Radiation Council,
and of all available scientific information;
"(2) the conduct by the National Academy
of Sciences of a full-scale review of the biological
effects of radiation, including all available
scientific information;
" {3) consultations between the National
Council on Radiation Protection and Meas-
urements and the National Academy of Sciences
to assure effective coordination between these
bodies to serve the objective of the arrange-
ments;
" (4) consultations by the National Council
on Radiation Protection and Measurements and
by the National Academy of Sciences, respec-
tively, with scientists outside and within the
Government;
"(5) the preparation and submittal by the
National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements to the President, or to the Gov-
ernment agency administering the arrange-
-------
894
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
ments, and to the Congress, by December 31,
1970, of its first complete report of its review
activities, which shall also set forth its lecom-
mendations respecting basic radiation piotection
standards and the reasons thei efor;
"(6) the maintenance by the National Coun-
cil on Radiation Protection and Measurements
of reasonably thorough knowledge of scientific
matters pertinent to basic radiation protection
standards within the scope of the arrangement,
including studies and research previously per-
formed, currently in progress or being planned;
" (7) such recommendations by the National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measure-
ments and the National Academy of Sciences
respecting the conduct of any studies or research
directly or indirectly pertinent to the basic radia-
tion protection standards, or the biological
effects of radiation on man and the ecology,
under the respective scope of each arrangement,
as either body deems advisable from time to
time;
"(8) the furnishing of scientific information
and advice by the National Council on Radia-
tion Protection and Measurements and by the
National Academy of Sciences, within the re-
spective scopes of the arrangements, to the Pres-
ident, Government agencies, the states, and
others, at the request of the President or the
Government agency administering the arrange-
ments;
"(9) the furnishing of scientific information
and advice by the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements and by the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences, within the respec-
tive scopes of the arrangements, to the Congress
pursuant to the request of any Committee of
the Congress;
" (10) the preparation and tiansmittal to
the President or to the Government agency
administering the arrangements, and to the
Congress, by the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measui ements and by the
National Academy of Sciences, at the end of
each calendar year subsequent to 1970, of a
report covering their respective review activi-
ties during the year; the report by the National
Council on Radiation Protection and Measui e-
ments shall also set forth any significant scien-
tific developments relative to basic radiation
protection standards, including any recommen-
dations; and the report by the National Academy
of Sciences shall set forth any significant scien-
tific developments bearing on the biological
effects of radiation on man and the ecology
including recommendations;
" (11) the preparation and transmittal to
the President, or to the Government agency
administering the arrangements, and to the
Congress, by the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements, of a prompt
report of any significant changes which it deems
advisable to recommend in regard to its previous
recommendations icspecting basic radiation pio-
tection standards or the scientific bases therefor
and not theretofore identified in its reports; and
"(12) the conduct of the activities of the
National Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements and of the National Academy of
Sciences, undei the lespective airangementy, in
accordance with high substantive and proce-
duial standards of sound scientific investigation
and findings.
"Repoits received fiom the National Council
on Radiation Pi otection and Measui ements
and the National Academy of Sciences under
the arrangements shall be promptly published
by the Govei nment agency admmistei ing the
arrangements. All recommendations, in such
repot ts by the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements, respecting basic
radiation protection standards pertinent to the
health and safety aspects of exposure to radio-
activity resulting from the development, use or
control of atomic eneigy, shall be carefully con-
sidered by any Government agency having
authority to establish such standards and, within
a reasonable period of time, such Government
agency shall submit to the Joint Committee a
report setting forth in detail its determinations
respecting the recommendations and the meas-
ures, revisions, or other actions it proposes to
take, adopt, 01 effect in i elation to the recom-
mendations."
Mr. HOLIFIELD (during- the read-
ing). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous
consent that the bill be considered as
read, printed in the RECORD, and open
to amendment at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objec-
tion to the request of the gentleman
from California?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Chairman,
the committee has no amendments to
offer and knows of no amendments.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule,
the Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose, and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. BURKE of Massachusetts, Chair-
man of the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union, re-
ported that that Committee, having
had under consideration the bill (H.R.
18679) to amend the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, to eliminate
the requirement for a finding of practi-
cal value, and for other purposes, pur-
suant to House Resolution 1227, he
reported the bill back to the House.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule,
the previous question is ordered.
The question is on engrossment and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
895
third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, and was read
the third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the
Speaker announced that the ayes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, I ob-
ject to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the
point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quo-
rum is not present.
The Doorkeeper will close the doors,
the Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-
sent Members, and the Clerk will call
the roll.
The question was taken; and there
were—yeas 346, nays 0, not voting 83,
as follows:
So the bill was passed.
[p. 34320]
[p. 34321]
l.lx(3)(b) Dec. 2: Considered, amended and passed Senate, pp.
39619-39623
AMENDMENT OF THE ATOMIC ENERGY
ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the Senate
proceed to the consideration of Calen-
dar No. 1273, H.R. 18679.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
bill will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill
(H.R. 18679) to amend the Atomic En-
ergy Act of 1954, as amended, to elim-
inate the requirement for a finding of
practical value, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, the Senate will proceed
to its consideration.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, the
bill we are considering today is identi-
cal to a bill that was reported unani-
mously by the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy, which bore the number
S. 4141. This bill was reported by the
18-member Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy without a single dissenting
vote. It contains three features. Two
of the features would bring up to date
and revise the provisions of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as heretofore
amended.
The third feature of the bill was in-
tended to assure that the National
Academy of Sciences and the National
Council on Radiation Protection and
Measurements would continue to be
consulted, as presently required by
subsection 274h of the Atomic Energy
Act, in connection with radiation mat-
ters and the formulation of radiation
standards—but not infrequently or
from time to time, as heretofore, but
on a continuing and comprehensive
basis. This feature is contained in
section 11, the concluding section of
H.R. 18679.
Section 11, to which I have referred,
Mr. President, was drafted before the
President submitted to the Congress
his Reorganization Plan No. 3, which
proposed the creation of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency. H.R. 18679
was reported out by the joint commit-
tee before the President's reorganiza-
tion plan successfully cleared the
Congress.
May we have order, Mr. President,
so that we do not have to raise our
voices?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senate will be in order.
Mr. PASTORE. I have had several
discussions concerning this section with
-------
896
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
my distinguished colleagues, Senator
HART of Michigan, Senator MUSKIE of
Maine, and Senator AIKEN of Ver-
mont; and I might say at this juncture
that Senator AIKEN was one of the
master architects of the bill that is be-
fore us today.
In view of the establishment of the
Environmental Protection Agency, and
the presently governing statutes, in-
cluding subsection 274h of the Atomic
Energy Act, a question has arisen as to
the necessity for section 11 at this
time.
I have also had some discussion with
Mr. BeLieu of the White House, who
is very much interested in this particu-
lar section.
I want to make it abundantly clear
that at no time was it the intention of
the Joint Committee to interfere with
the transfer of functions to the En-
vironmental Protection Agency.
It has always been the concern of the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy in
all of its dealings in atomic energy
matters to consider public health and
safety foremost. This continues to be
the objective of the committee and will
always be the objective of the commit-
tee as long as I am a member, and as
long as its other distinguished mem-
bers are associated with the committee
•—and beyond that its responsibilities
under section 202 of the Atomic En-
ergy Act, including the committee's
responsibility in relation to the imple-
mentation of subsection 274h.
Everything considered, I am now go-
ing to move that section 11 be deleted
from the bill—the entire section—and
I send to the desk an cmendment to
accomplish that purpose.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
On page 9, line 23, delete the following: The
entire section 11 of the bill, from page 9, line
23, through page 14, line 15 inclusive.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I
want to make it abundantly clear that,
having removed this section—and this
is agreeable to the Senator from Mich-
igan (Mr. HART), the Senator from
Maine (Mr. MUSKIE), the Senator
from Vermont (Mr. AIKEN), and my-
self, and I have discussed it also with
the chairman of the Joint Committee,
Representative HOLIFIELD, who acqui-
esced in my judgment—our committee
will look into the operation of the EPA
relative to atomic energy. Other com-
mittees can look into it with respect to
matters within their jurisdiction, and
we think that the ecology of the coun-
try will be protected.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Rhode
Island.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I might
add that while I believe that this radia-
tion section does not deserve the con-
demnation some people have placed on
it, nevertheless, it is not necessary at
this time. It can be considered next
year, or other means to accomplish the
same end can be taken up next year.
The other two sections of the bill are
necessary, and it is very important
that we get them through with the
least possible delay. Therefore, I have
agreed, in the interests of harmony and
the early enactment of this bill, that we
strike the provision relating to radia-
tion, and proceed with the other parts,
which are quite necessary, in my
opinion.
Mr. PASTORE. I thank the Senator
from Vermont. I think at this junc-
ture, in view of what I have said, I
ought to explain what section 11 ac-
tually did.
Senators must realize that at the
time we were working on this bill—and
this was unanimous on the part of the
18 members of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy—the Environmental
Protection Agency had not yet been
established. As a matter of fact, Re-
organization Plan No. 3 had only been
submitted.
In view of that fact, all we could do
was give the President the authority to
assign the responsibility to enter into
the arrangements to any agency he
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
897
desired, and in all probability, of
course, he would have selected the
agency which is now the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency.
But section 11 went beyond that. It
directed that any agency the President
would designate should enter into a
long-term contract with two preemi-
nent scientific bodies, one of them being
the National Academy of Sciences.
Now, what is the National Academy of
Sciences? It was created in 1863 by an
act of Congress signed by Abraham
Lincoln. It is a nonprofit organiza-
tion, it does not pay taxes, and it con-
sists of the leading scientists
[p. 39618]
of the country. Where else would we
go to an impartial scientific verdict,
and sound recommendations?
What were they supposed to do?
They were supposed to—on a continu-
ing and comprehensive basis—make
studies of the biological effects of radi-
ation on individuals in our society and
on the ecology. That is essentially all
it amounted to.
We also named the National Council
on Radiation Protection and Measure-
ments. And who are they? They were
first established in 1929, and are,
again, nonprofit, do not pay taxes,
have no ax to grind, and are an impar-
tial body of the best scientific minds in
the country that could give proper sci-
entific advice and recommendations to
the Agency.
These scientific bodies are going to
do that anyway—and they are doing it
now; but in view of the fact that the
Agency was established after this bill
was reported out, and is just coming
into being, I believe the best procedure
would be to eliminate this feature from
this bill at this time, and give the
Agency a chance to get its feet on the
ground and begin to work out its prob-
lems ; and later on, if we have to go into
it, as the Senator from Vermont has
said, we can do that after we return in
January.
The two features that the Senator
from Vermont has talked about, apart
from section 11, are two things that
need to be done, and I am going to ex-
plain them.
The first feature of the bill deals
with the present rigid requirement
that, before the Commission may issue
a commercial license for a nuclear
powerplant or for other industrially
or commercially useful nuclear facili-
ties, it must make a finding that the
type of facility "has been sufficiently
developed to be of practical value for
industrial or commercial purposes."
The Atomic Energy Commission has
not yet made a finding of practical
value for any type of nuclear facility
and, therefore, nuclear powerplants
are still being licensed as research and
development facilities. Developments
to date have overtaken the need for any
finding of practical value by the Com-
mission. There is simply no reason to
retain in the Atomic Energy Act the
concept that such a finding must pre-
cede commercial licensing. Accord-
ingly, H.R. 18679 erases this concept
from the 1954 act and paves the way
for the commercial licensing of nuclear
facilities.
In accomplishing this objective, the
Joint Committee had to take a close
look at a related provision in the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954; namely,
the text of subsection 105c. of that act.
That subsection presently provides
that whenever the Commission pro-
poses to issue a commercial license, it
shall notify the Attorney General of
the proposed license and the proposed
terms and conditions thereof. The At-
torney General would then be obliged
to advise the Commission "whether, in-
sofar as he can determine, the proposed
license would tend to create or main-
tain a situation inconsistent with the
antitrust laws"; his advice would be
published in the Federal Register.
I may say at this juncture that this
whole thing was discussed with mem-
bers of the Justice Department.
This provision—subsection 105 c.—
is separate and apart from subsection
-------
898
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
105 a. of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954 which clearly states at the very
outset that "Nothing contained in this
Act shall relieve any person from the
operation of the following acts as
amended" and there then follows a
specification of the antitrust laws and
the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Subsection 195 a. would remain wholly
unchanged and unaffected by the enact-
ment into law of the bill now before the
Senate.
Because the language and potential
effect of the existing subsection 105 c.
are not sufficiently clear, the committee
decided to clarify and revise this phase
of the Commission's licensing process.
H.R. 18679 does this. Revised subsec-
tion 105 c. clarifies the antitrust review
standard and specifically describes
what the Commission is to do in rela-
tion to the advice received from the
Attorney General. The end product is
the result of the committee's explora-
tion of every facet of the background
of this provision, and of the commit-
tee's judgment respecting the scope
and type of review that AEC ought to
conduct. The committee and its staff
spent many, many hours on this aspect
of the bill, and I can assure the Senate
that we consider very carefully the con-
siderable testimony, comments and
opinions we received from interested
agencies, associations, companies and
individuals, including representatives
from the Antitrust Division of the Jus-
tice Department, from privately owned
utilities, and from public and coopera-
tive power interests. The end product,
as delineated in H.R. 18679, is a care-
fully perfected compromise by the com-
mittee itself; I want to emphasize that
it does not represent the position, the
preference, or the input of any of the
special pleaders inside or outside of the
Government. In the committee's judg-
ment, revised subsection 105 c., which
the committee carefully put together
to the satisfaction of all of its mem-
bers, constitutes a balanced, moderate
framework for a reasonable licensing
review procedure.
I want to stress in the clearest pos-
sible way that subsection 105c. in no
way extends, revises, impairs, modifies,
or impinges on the antitrust laws of
our statute books, or prevents or limits
their full application. The authorities
and responsibilities of the Attorney
General and others by virtue of our
antitrust laws remain completely unin-
terfered with and unaffected by the
review functions dealt with in section
105 c.
I also want to underscore several
other important intentions of the com-
mittee. Paragraph (8) of subsection
105 c. will enable the Commission to
avoid delaying the issuance of permits
or licenses in certain cases due to the
antitrust review feature. This flexi-
bility applies with respect to antitrust
questions that are or may be raised at
the initiative of the Attorney General
or another; the objective is to help
avoid unnecessary delays in the sched-
uling or operation of needed power-
plants.
The committee further intends, aside
from antitrust considerations, that
construction permit proceedings in
progress at the time the bill becomes
law be continued as a section 103 pro-
ceeding with an absolute minimum of
procedural delay. Although the bill
does not specifically deal with the ob-
jective of avoiding delay incident to the
change in posture from 104 b. to sec-
tion 103 status, aside from antitrust
considerations, it would be the height
of folly to stretch out unnecessarily
the increasingly long interval between
an application for a construction per-
mit and the regulatory decision on the
permit. A few years ago, this period
approximated 7 to 9 months. Now, the
interval is closer to 18 months and has
approached 2 years in some cases. The
committee understands that in the nor-
mal routine there may be one or more
cases where the construction permit
proceedings have essentially been
brought to a conclusion, except for the
ultimate regulatory decision. The
committee intends that the Commission
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
899
will, by appropriate rule, regulation, or
order, pursuant to its discretion, suit-
ably bridge the change to section 103
status so as to avoid, to the greatest
extent reasonably practicable, any de-
lays in the scheduling of needed power-
plants or other needless hardships.
There may, for example, be instances
where an extension of the usual policy
of granting regulatory permission to
start or continue with construction
items may avoid unnecessary delay,
financial penalties, or other hardships.
The Commission should use sound
judgment to avoid or minimize such
delay or hardship because of the con-
version of the status of a 104b. appli-
cation for a construction permit to one
under section 103 of this bill. I am
speaking, of course, of procedural steps
—not health or safety issues. The
joint committee would never acquiesce
in any short cuts relative to health or
safety matters. The "practical value"
feature of the bill does not affect health
and safety considerations in any way.
The second feature of H.R. 18679
would make a minor change in subsec-
tion 161 v., of the Atomic Energy Act.
This subsection was added by the Pri-
vate Ownership of Special Nuclear
Materials Act which was passed in
1964. The subsection pertains to the
furnishing" of uranium enrichment
services by the AEC. This service,
which is performed through utilization
of the Government's unique gaseous
diffusion facilities, increases the per-
centage of fissionable isotopes in natu-
ral uranium so that the enriched
material can be used as fuel in nuclear
reactors. The 1964 amendment pro-
vided that the AEC was to establish
prices for that service "on a basis
which will provide reasonable compen-
sation to the Government." It further
provided that the AEC was to establish
written criteria for the furnishing of
the service and in support of the prices
it would charge. The legislative his-
tory clearly indicated the intent of the
committee and of Congress that the
statutory basis for AEC's prices would
be recovery of the Government's costs.
The initial criteria established by the
AEC—which have been in use until
now—in fact provided for prices based
on the recovery of appropriate Govern-
ment costs over a reasonable period of
time. However, several months ago,
the AEC proposed radically revised
criteria which are not based on the
recovery of the Govern-
[p. 39619]
ment's costs, but, rather, on factors
related to a hypothetical plant of the
future that would be privately owned.
The new criteria are impossibly vague
and can be used as apparent justifica-
tion for almost any price at any time.
When AEC submitted the proposed re-
vised criteria to the committee in June,
we sought and obtained the advice of
the General Accounting Office. The
Comptroller General reported to the
committee that the revised criteria did
not appear to be consistent with the
intention of Congress. This is also the
opinion of the joint committee. In ef-
fect, then, these new criteria are so
vague as to remove the stability we
have had in the pricing of uranium fuel
and consequently to accelerate the in-
flationary trend in the prices of our
other fuels. And they amount to a
thwarting of the intention of Congress.
Section 8 of H.R. 18679 supports and
reaffirms with even greater clarity the
intention of Congress, as clearly dis-
cerned by the GAO in its July 17, 1970
report to the committee, that the Com-
mission's charges for enriching serv-
ices be based on the recovery of
appropriate Government costs over a
reasonable period of time.
Mr. President, at this time I yield
to the distinguished Senator from
Vermont.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, first, I
would like to commend the Senator
from Rhode Island for his clear sum-
mary of the spirit and provisions of
the bill before the Senate. The Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy and the
staff have worked long and hard in
-------
900
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
order to get a good bill. We have a
good bill, and it should be enacted.
Since the senior Senator from Rhode
Island has clearly explained the provi-
sions of this bill, I will not undertake
to duplicate his efforts. I simply have
one other statement to make.
I was concerned that the language of
the bill clearly would result in the ap-
plication of the antitrust laws in this
country to the producers of electrical
energy from nuclear .plants. There-
fore, I consulted with the Department
of Justice quite freely and received
their assurance that this is a good bill.
I received a letter from them, dated
November 9, 1970, signed by Richard
W. McLaren, Assistant Attorney Gen-
eral, Antitrust Division, from which I
read two paragraphs at this time:
It appears to us that the bill adopted by
the Joint Committee, and its accompanying
report, actually serve to strengthen the anti-
trust safeguards of the Atomic Eneigy Act.
The other paragraph states:
The Committee's intent seems clear: if AEC
finds that a situation "inconsistent with the
antitrust laws" would result from activities
undei a license, it may either (1) deny the
license or (2) condition grant of the license on
action by the applicant (s) to eliminate the
inconsistency. If there is an urgent need for
powei in the aiea, attaching antitrust conditions
to the license may be the preferable course of
action for AEC to take in the public interest.
For example, applicants for a license for a joint
venture nuclear power plant could be granted
a license by AEC to construct a vitally needed
facility; however, grant of the license would be
conditioned upon applicants' affording access to
low cost power from the nuclear facility on
reasonable terms to a utility theretofore excluded
from participation, if exclusion of the latter
would subject it to unreasonable competitive dis-
advantage.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have the entire letter printed in
the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the REC-
ORD, as follows:
DEPARTMENT OP JUSTICE,
Washington. D.C., November 9, 1970.
Hon. GEORGE D. AIKEN,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR AIKEN : This responds to your
request for the views of the Department of
Justice on the provisions of S, 4141 relating to
AEC pre-licensing review, in the form reported
by the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy on
September 29, 1970.
As you know, we have not felt that there
is a pressing need for additional legislation
concerning AEC's licensing procedures or for
new legislation on the antitrust standards re-
lating thereto. However, in deference to the
views of otheis, including the Atomic Energy
Commission, that legislation clarifying the
procedures would be desirable, we have
worked with the AEC and the Joint Committee
to fashion appropriate amendments to the
Atomic Energy Act in order to provide the
greater specificity as to licensing procedures
that is desired. We have also consulted with
you and other members of the Joint Committee
to assure that any changes made in the wording
of the antitrust standard would be well-drafted
legislation.
We are satisfied that the bill reported by the
Joint Committee adequately takes into account
antitrust considerations. While there would
be a slight change of language, as between per-
sistent law and S. 4141, in the antitrust stan-
dard to be applied in the licensing of nuclear
facilities (the words "tend to" would be deleted
from the present language of section 105c), we
understand that this is intended to clarify,
rather than effect any substantial change in, the
antitrust safeguards of the Act. The Committee
Report on S. 4141 (Senate Report No, 91-1247)
makes clear that in licensing proceedings AEC is
i equired to determine whether activities under
the required license would (1) contravene the
antitrust laws or (2) be incompatible with the
policies cleaily underlying these laws. In con-
nection with the latter, the Committee Report
notes (p. 15) that the AEC "has the duty . . .
to be mindful of the general objective of
strengthening free competition in private enter-
prise." Thus, we understand that S. 4141 enjoins
AEC to estimate and appraise carefully any
anticompetitive effects which would lesult from
activities under a requested license. The AEC
would determine not only whether the activities
would "violate" the Sherman, Clayton, or
Federal Trade Commission Acts, but also
whether it is reasonably probable that situations
or activities would result which would be incom-
patible with the policies of maintaining and
fostering free competition which underlie those
statutes.
It appears to us that the bill adopted by the
Joint Committee, and its accompanying leport,
actually serve to strengthen the antitrust safe-
guards of the Atomic Energy Act. First, they
reaffirm unequivocably the Congressional intent
underlying existing provisions of the Act that
antitrust implications of the granting by AEC
of licenses be carefully assessed. Second, AEC
itself would be required to make findings under
the antitrust standards, something which it is
not specifically required to do by the existing
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
901
statute. Third, the Committee Report on S. 4141
explains the meaning of the phrase "inconsistent
with the antitrust Jaws." The explanation (pp.
14-15, 31) is fully in accord with the view which
the Department of Justice has always held as to
the meaning of this language but for which
until now there has been no clear Congressional
or judicial endorsement.
Finally, we think the new section 105c(G)
will have very beneficial results. It enjoins AEC
to use its licensing authority in order both to
meet power needs and to assure that antitrust
principles are observed. Since applicants will
know that projects having anticompetitive
effects will be subject to careful scrutiny by
AEC and to possible delay if antitrust problems
are present, there will be incentive for applicants
to remove antitrust pioblems in the eaily stages
of project planning. Not only will this be
desirable from an antitrust standpoint, it will
accelerate needed inci eases in power supply by
expediting AEC's pre-licensing review. Section
105c(6) instructs AEC that, although theie may
be "need for power in the affected aiea," this
need is not to override predictable adverse
competitive effects of activities under a re-
quested license except in the most exceptional
cases. The Committee Report emphasizes
(P.31):
The Committee does not expect that an
affirmative finding [of inconsistency with anti-
trust laws or policy] under paragraph 5 would
normally be overridden by Commission findings
and actions under paragraph (6). * * * Nor-
mally the committee expects the Commission's
actions under paragraph (5) and (6) will har-
monize both antitrust and such other public
interest considerations as may be involved.
The inclusion of this provision should
tend to reduce substantially the number of
applications which will raise antitrust issues.
Applicants will be motivated to resolve anti-
trust problems befoie commencement of AEC
proceedings, otherwise AEC must ordinarily
resolve them in the couise of pre-licensing
review, or deny the license.
The Committee's intent seems clear: if AEC
finds that a situation "inconsistent with the
antitrust laws" would result from activities
under a license, it may either (1) deny the
license or (2) condition grant of the license on
action by the applicant (s) to eliminate the
inconsistency. If there is an urgent need for
power in the area, attaching antitrust condi-
tions to the license may be the preferable course
of action for AEC to take in the public interest.
For example, applicants for a license for a joint
venture nuclear power plant could be granted
a license by AEC to construct a vitally needed
facility; however, grant of the license would
be conditioned upon applicants' affording access
to low cost powei from the nuclear facility on
reasonable terms to a utility theretofore excluded
from participation, if exclusion of the latter
would subject it to unreasonable competitive
disadvantage.
On the basis of our understanding of the
purpose and meaning of S. 4141, as set forth
above, the Department of Justice supports
enactment of this legislation.
Sincerely yours,
RICHARD W. MCLAREN,
Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust
Division.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, with
that assurance from the Department
of Justice, and the cooperation of the
entire Joint Committee on Atomic En-
ergy, the bill was reported unani-
mously, so that I feel we should enact
this legislation.
As for the part relating to radiation,
it has been said it is not essential at
this time. Personally, I think it would
be desirable, but it is not essential and
rather than engage in a long, drawn-
out controversy now, it would be much
better to take it up at the next session
of Con-
[p. 39620]
gress either in this form or in some
other manner.
Mr. President, I hope that the bill
will be passed without further delay.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Rhode
Island.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I
should like to commend the distin-
guished Senator from Rhode Island
(Mr. PASTURE) for his excellent state-
ment explaining this bill. I support
this measure completely. This joint
committee explored every facet in
depth and there were many matters
which required and received the utmost
of attention and care.
As an example, let me call attention
to page 27 of the committee report
which makes clear that the Atomic
Energy Act, as now on the books and
as amended by this bill, neither causes
nor intends to cause any change in the
language or interpretation of the Fed-
eral Power Act relative to those utili-
ties subject to the jurisdiction of the
Federal Power Commission under that
act.
-------
902
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, I
have been concerned for many years
about the growing trend toward own-
ership of large-scale nuclear power-
plants by only a few large utilities.
The specter of such a monopoly in the
nuclear energy field has haunted many
of us, and, as Senator AIKEN has said,
the "gold rush" is on as the large pri-
vate utility companies race to the
Atomic Energy Commission to secure
licenses for nuclear generating plants
under so-called research and develop-
ment sections of the Atomic Energy
Act. Such research and development li-
censes as defined by the present Atomic
Energy Act are not subject to rigid
antitrust scrutiny, and the would-be
monopolists were not wasting any time
in obtaining a stranglehold on nuclear
generating facilities while the smaller
utilities looked on helplessly.
The Atomic Energy Act does contain
stringent antitrust review provisions
which apply to licenses issued for com-
mercial nuclear generating plants.
However, the AEC has not seen fit to
make a finding that the multimillion
dollar plants they have been licensing
have any practical value, which is a
requirement before a commercial li-
cense is issued under the terms of the
act. This bill would eliminate the ne-
cessity of making a finding of practical
value and compel AEC to issue only
one type of license with stringent anti-
trust review requirements.
While this bill represents an impor-
tant step forward in curing monopo-
listic conditions in the generation of
electric power by atomic facilities, I
was concerned about subsection 105 (c)
(6) in which it is stated:
In the event the Commission's finding under
paragraph 5 is in the affirmative, the Commis-
sion shall also consider, in determining whether
the license should be issued or continued, such
other factors, including the need for powei in
the affected area, as the Commission in its judg-
ment deems relevant to the public interest.
The finding referred to in this lan-
guage is a contravention of the anti-
trust provision of the act as amended
by H.R. 18679.
It appeared to me that this section of
the bill raised the possibility that an
exemption from the antitrust provi-
sions of the act could be secured by an
applicant if AEC determined that the
need for power or other factors over-
rode antitrust considerations. There-
fore, on August 21, 1970, I wrote
Assistant Attorney General Richard
W. McLaren, Antitrust Division, De-
partment of Justice, and asked him
several questions concerning this lan-
guage. He answered my questions in a
letter dated September 2, 1970.
I asked him whether the proposed
subsection 105 (c) (6) would amount to
an exemption from the antitrust provi-
sions of the Atomic Energy Act. He
replied:
We do not think the proposed Subsection
(c) (6) would amount to an exemption from
the antitrust provisions in the Atomic Energy
Commission Act. The Atomic Energy Com-
mission is obliged to give consideration and
effect to the advice of the Attorney General and
the nation's policy in favor of a competitive
economy. Indeed, the statement of policy at the
outset of the Commission's Act specifically
enjoins it to piomote free competition in piivate
enterprise. In our view, the cited language does
not alter this.
I asked him how the Department con-
strued the language "need for power in
the affected area," and what "other
factors" would be pertinent. He
answered:
It is difficult to state any definitive construc-
tion for 'need for power in the affected area,'
other than the meaning plain in the words. The
relevant question is not what the words mean,
but how the need for power is to be integrated
into the Commission's over-all licensing deter-
mination. In our opinion, the Commission
would be obliged to make its decision on a
licensing issue in accordance with the statement
of policy at the outset of the Act. This state-
ment of policy cleanly and comprehensively
states the guiding considerations for Commission
action in licensing and other areas. These con-
siderations subsume the need for power.
We would not think the AEC could "avoid
the conditioning of licenses to cuie adverse anti-
tiust findings" simply upon a finding that theie
was a need for power in the affected area.
Rathei, we expect, and we believe that the
Commission expects, that the Commission's con-
ditioning authority could be used to cure com-
petitive problems while allowing constiuction
and utilization of facilities.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
903
We must recognize, I think, that the basic
directive to the Commission is to maximize
the welfare of the population insofai as its
activities in the nuclear field are concerned,
and that all other stated considerations aie
subsidiary to this one. In some instances a
project might be delayed for a period of time,
even taking into account the nation's continu-
ing need for power supply, on the judgment
that, over the long run, more will be gained by
correcting anticompetitive situations than by
immediately issuing a license. Also, there may
be occasions when a power plant will have to be
put on stieam quickly, competitive problems
cured as much as is possible before licensing,
but also cured after licensing, or corrected in
part by non-licensing authorities.
This is simply to say that, like all other
identified policies—such as preserving natural
resources, promoting a favorable balance of
payments, stimulating invention, and so forth
—the competitive policy must be integrated into
decisions designed to maximize the general
public welfare. We are awaie, as you are, that
though the policy is fundamental to our economic
system, it is not always easy to bring the deci-
sions of government bodies fully into alignment
with it. And we are awaie that persons and
firms who find competition uncomfortable may
often attempt to induce a sacrifice of competi-
tion by calling upon other policies in a specious
or overdrawn fashion. But we think these
problems can be addressed without overstating
the contiibution of the competitive policy, or
declining to recognize that it forms an integial
pait, not the whole, of our national policies.
Finally, I asked Mr. McLaren
whether the AEC could make an ad-
verse antitrust finding and then ignore
it, rather than considering antitrust
and other matters at the same time.
He said that—
We do not think that the language of the
bill to which you refer would permit the AEC
to make an antitiust finding and then "ignoie"
it. We think, as your last question suggests,
that the Commission would consider antitrust
and other matters "at the same time," that is,
in its overall determination of the best inteiests
of the population.
I am satisfied that no exemption
from the antitrust provisions of the
Atomic Energy Act can be inferred
from the language of subsection 105 (c)
(6). The interpretation given by the
Department of Justice of this subsec-
tion makes it clear that AEC will be
given the appropriate power to stop the
monopolization of nuclear generating
facilities and open the door to partici-
pation in such plants to all utilities
when monopoly is a threat.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, as chair-
man of the Antitrust and Monopoly
Subcommittee, I feel obliged to com-
ment on the portion of the Atomic
Energy Act amendment relating to
prelicensing antitrust review of appli-
cations for nuclear facilities for com-
mercial or industrial purposes.
Section 6 of the bill revises those pro-
visions of subsection 105(c) to require
the Commission to transmit applica-
tions for nuclear power plants to the
Attorney General for review and also
requires a finding by the AEC as to
whether the activities under the license
would create or maintain a situation
inconsistent with the antitrust laws.
If the Attorney General finds there
may be adverse antitrust aspects, the
Commission must conduct a hearing
giving due consideration to the Attor-
ney General's advice and then make a
finding as to whether the activities un-
der the license would create or main-
tain a situation inconsistent with the
antitrust laws, as specified in subsec-
tion 105 (c) of the Atomic Energy Act.
In addition, any person may intervene
in the construction permit proceedings,
raising antitrust considerations—even
if the Attorney General does not. The
Commission would be required to afford
the intervenor the opportunity to be
heard.
Mr. President, I was concerned natu-
rally as to the antitrust implications in
this bill; and, therefore, posed several
questions to the Assistant Attorney
General in charge of the Antitrust Di-
vision. I will ask consent to incorpo-
rate this exchange of correspondence in
the RECORD following my remarks. As
will be seen, the Department of Justice
does not believe that the bill in any
sense weakens antitrust standards with
respect to the licensing procedure. As
I understand it, the Antitrust Division
staff worked very closely with the Joint
Atomic Energy Committee in assuring
that the final
[p. 39621]
-------
904
LEGAL COMPILATION—EADIATION
product now before us does, in fact,
protect antitrust considerations in the
granting of licenses.
An area of this bill which gave me
some concern was paragraph 6 of sec-
tion 6 which states:
(6) In the event the Commission's finding
under paragraph (6) is in the affirmative, the
Commission shall also consider, in determining
whether the license should be issued or continued,
such other factors, including the need for power
in the affected area, as the Commission in its
judgment deems necessary to protect the public
interest. On the basis of its findings, the Com-
mission shall have the authority to issue or
continue a license as applied for, to refuse to
issue a license, to rescind a license or amend it,
and to issue a license with such conditions as it
deems appropriate.
The senior Senator from Vermont,
as I understand it, also was concerned
with this paragraph and queried the
Antitrust Division with respect to
whether or not the claim of a need for
power would be expected to override
antitrust considerations.
I believe that the senior Senator
from Vermont received a reply from
the Department of Justice which should
allay any fears in this area and that
this communication will be inserted
into the RECORD of this debate.
In this regard, I also would like to
insert in the RECORD a statement made
by the Honorable MELVIN PRICE, of Il-
linois, during the House debate on this
matter:
Mr. Chairman, concern has been expressed
that this legislation would permit the Atomic
Energy Commission to exempt a license ap-
plicant from the necessity of correcting an
antitrust abuse included in a Commission finding
where the Commission finds that the need
for power in the area or other factors are
overriding.
The committee, as stated in the report,
expects the Commission normally to take care
of both the need for energy as well as to remedy
the situation where there has been an affirmative
finding under paragraph (5). The report on
page 31 in this respect states:
"While the Commission has the flexibility
to consider and weigh the vaiious interests and
objectives which may be involved, the commit-
tee does not expect that an affirmative finding
under paragraph (5) would normally need to
be overridden by Commission findings and
actions under paragraph (6). The Committee
believes that, except in an extraordinary situa-
tion, Commission-imposed conditions should be
able to eliminate the concerns entailed in any
affirmative finding under paragraph (5) while,
at the same time, accommodating the other
public interest concerns found pursuant to para-
graph (6). Normally, the committee expects
the Commission's actions under paragraphs (B)
and (6) will harmonize both antitrust and such
other public interest considerations as may be
involved."
Considerations involving "the need for power
in the affected area" or "other factors" will not
permit the Commission to ignore an adverse
antitrust finding under paragraph (5) of
subsection 105 (c).
It seems to me that the clear intent
of this language in subsection 105 (c)
(6) is to enable the Atomic Energy
Commission to expedite the licensing of
nuclear power facilities while, at the
same time, taking those steps neces-
sary to cure adverse antitrust findings
under the provisions of the act. If an
adverse antitrust finding is made by
the Commission, it may issue or con-
tinue a license when there is a "need
for power in an area," but this issuance
or continuance must be accompanied by
appropriate conditions in the license
which require the applicant to cure the
adverse antitrust findings. If the ap-
plicant or holder of the license does not
cure the antitrust findings, then the
AEC may suspend or revoke the license
regardless of the "need for power in
the affected area."
Under no circumstances would the
Commission be relieved of its respon-
sibility to require applicants for li-
censes to conform to the antitrust
provisions of the act and the antitrust
laws generally. It would not seem
likely that an applicant would continue
the construction of a facility or begin
construction while antitrust problems
clouded the license, but if the Commis-
sion deems it necessary to give an
applicant that choice then the "need for
power in the affected area" allows the
issuance of a conditioned license.
The other area of this bill that gave
me some concern was whether para-
graph (5) of section 6 might preclude
the Department of Justice from pursu-
ing antitrust remedies in the courts if
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
905
the Commission decided that a particu-
lar situation did not "create or main-
tain a situation inconsistent with the
antitrust laws as specified in subsection
105 (a) of the Atomic Energy Act."
The report, I believe, clearly shows
that such was not the intent stating:
Section 6 of the bill clarifies and revises
subsection 105 c. of the act. The bill does not
affect in any way the important features con-
tained in the provisions of subsections 105 a.
and 105 b. of the 1954 act. These subsections
remain separate, distinct and wholly unaffected
by the proposed revised subsection 105 c. For
example, the Attorney General's advice under
the new subsection 105 c., and the participation
by the Attorney General or his desigrnee in the
proceedings referred to in paragraph (5) of the
subsection, would be completely separate and
apart from any actions the Attorney General
may deem advisable in i elation to the antitrust
laws referred to in subsection 105 a. Also,
under paragraph (1) of the new subsection 105
c., the Attorney General may, in his discretion,
should he consider that his advice might preju-
dice planned actions under the antitrust laws
referred to in subsection 105 a., or for any
other reason, render no advice to the Com-
mission.
The report also notes:
Subsection 105(a) wisely emphasizes that
"Nothing contained in this Act"—and this
includes subsection 105(c)—"shall relieve any
person from the operation" of the antitrust
laws. It further provides that in the event a
licensee is found to have violated the antitrust
laws in the conduct of the licensed activities that
"the Commission may suspend, revoke, or take
such other action as it may deem necessary with
respect to any license issued by the Commission
under the provisions of this Act."
In addition, the Joint Committee
noted:
The antitrust laws within the ambit of sub-
section 105(c) of the bill are all the laws
specified in subsection 105 (a). These include
the statutory provisions pertaining to the
Federal Trade Commission, which normally are
not identified as antitrust law. Accordingly, the
focus for the Commission's finding will, for
example, include consideration of the admonition
in section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission
Act, as amended, that "Unfair methods of
competition in commerce, and unfair and decep-
tive acts in commerce, are declared unlawful."
Under the antitrust standard of the
present act and S. 4141, the Commis-
sion is instructed to survey license ap-
plications in light of incipient antitrust
possibilities. In other words, the AEC
will look at factual situations having1
the probability of contravening the
antitrust laws, and will also be looking
at antitrust violations. It could well
be that in passing on the antitrust as-
pects of license applications facts lead-
ing to separate antitrust suits by the
Attorney General or others may be
developed. If so, the Attorney General
or others, including agencies such as
the Federal Trade Commission, may
take these facts to other forums for
antitrust relief, including the appro-
priate courts or regulatory agencies.
Nothing in S. 4141 precludes or im-
pedes any antitrust action by the At-
torney General or others, whether the
relief sought is criminal or civil in
nature.
The Atomic Energy Act is only a
supplement to existing antitrust laws,
and this will not be changed by the
passage of S. 4141. No primary juris-
diction is vested in the AEC, and all
forums of antitrust relief remain open
for all parties at any time, whether or
not the Commission may be considering
similar or identical facts and issues in
a licensing proceeding involving sim-
ilar parties.
Moreover, other intervenors as well
in the Commission proceedings would
have the opportunity to exhaust their
appellate remedies if they so desired.
Mr. President, nuclear power will be
a most important contributor if we are
to come anywhere near meeting the
power demands of the very near future.
However, already many of us are
concerned about the growing concen-
tration of ownership of our energy
producers and over some apparently
anticompetitive practices in many
areas.
It would be a distressing develop-
ment if nuclear power were allowed to
grow—but brought with it monopolis-
tic practices which had the effect of
limiting the supply of power to some
energy companies.
It is clear from the facts and opin-
ions I have cited that it definitely is not
-------
906
LEGAL COMPILATION—BADIATION
the intention of Congress in amending
the AEC Act that this should occur.
I have raised this point only to add to
the legislative history and to make even
clearer Congress' intention that the
antitrust standards apply to licensing
of nuclear facilities, and I ask unani-
mous consent that the letter be printed
in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letters
were ordered to be printed in the REC-
ORD, as follows:
AUGUST 28,1970.
Mr. RICHARD W. MCLAREN,
Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Divi-
sion, Department of Justice, 'Washington,
D.C.
DEAR MR. MCLAREN: I am very concerned
over a pro"ision contained in S. 4141 which
was recently approved by the Joint Committee
on Atomic Energy. As you know, this measure
would amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954
by eliminating the requirement for a finding of
"practical value" in the licensing of nuclear
power plants utilizing
[p. 39622]
light water reactors and require licenses for
all such reactors to be issued under Section 103
of the Act, which requires AEC to consider
anticipatory antitrust matters.
However, S. 4141 changes the antitrust stand-
ard contained in Section 105 (c) of the present
Act and substitutes a new standard which would
be applied to Section 103 licenses. Under the
present language in 105(c), the Attorney Gen-
eral advises the Atomic Energy Commission
whether "the proposed license would tend to
create or maintain a situation inconsistent with
the antitrust laws." S. 4141 would change the
standard to whether "the activities under the
license would create or maintain a situation in-
consistent with the antitrust laws as specified
in subsection 105 (a)."
To the best of my knowledge, the language
proposed as an antitrust standard in S. 4141 is
not contained in any other federal statute and
was not discussed during the hearings on prac-
tical value legislation by the Joint Committee. I
would appreciate it if the Department of Justice
could provide me with its interpretation of the
proposed language in the following areas:
1. Does the proposed new standard represent
a weakening of antitrust review over the licens-
ing of nuclear power plants under Section 103
of the Atomic Energy Act?
2. Will the new standard apply to applicants
who have received construction permits under
challenge by intervenes on antitrust grounds
when these applicants seek an operating license?
3. Is there a positive value to be gained by the
consideration and implementation of antitrust
policy by administrative agencies such as AEC
in their decision-making process?
4. Does the Department of Justice see any
need for a change in the antitrust standard of
the present Atomic Energy Act?
5. Are there any statutory precedents for the
new antitrust standard proposed in S. 4141?
G. The present language of Section 105 (c) of
the Atomic Eneigy Act is identical with lan-
guage contained in the Surplus Property Act of
1944. Has the Department of Justice experi-
enced any difficulty in administering the stand-
ard under the Surplus Property Act?
7, Would the new antitrust standard pro-
posed by S. 4141 change or alter the interpreta-
tion placed on the present standard by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
in the Statcsville decision, in which the stand-
aid was interpreted to mean "anticipatory anti-
trust review?"
I would appreciate prompt receipt of your
answers to these questions together with any
additional comments you might wish to make
which would aid me in analyzing the significance
of this proposed new antitrust review standard.
Sincerely,
PHILIP A. HART,
Chairman.
NOVEMBER 8,1970.
Hon. PHILIP A. HART,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Antitrust and Mo-
nopoly, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I have delayed some-
what in responding to your letter on S. 4141, be-
cause it was not clear what interpretation the
Committee would give the words spelling out
the anti-trust standard to be applied by the AEC
in its licensing proceedings, to which you refer
in your letter. The Committee has now prepared
a report which would give these words an inter-
pretation consistent with what we think appro-
priate. That is, the Commission is to make its
determination on competitive consequences of
activity under the license pursuant to the guid-
ance of both the specific provisions of the
antitrust laws, and the policies which underlie
these provisions. With this understanding, I
can now reply to your questions better than I
could before. I will take the questions in order.
First, I do not think that the new standard
represents a weakening of antitrust review over
the licensing of nuclear power plants under Sec-
tion 103 of the Atomic Energy Act.
You will note that the Attorney General can
give advice on such terms as he deems appro-
priate with respect to the determination the
Commission must make concerning competitive
issues (revised Sec. 105c(l)). This provision
allows a scope for advice as broad as that now
contained in Section 103.
The provision for the Commission's finding on
competitive issues does lack the "tend to" lan-
guage of the language now in Section 103, but
we do not consider this a weakening of the
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
907
standard. One of the antitrust laws to which
the standard refers is Section 7 of the Clayton
Act, which deals with the question whether cor-
porate joinders, joint ventures, and the like may
substantially lessen competition or tend to create
a monopoly. This statute has been interpreted
to reach tendencies toward concentration in
their incipiency. Thus, we think there is suffi-
cient authority within the antitiust laws, and
within the policies which underlie them, for
dealing with incipient situations, without the
addition of an additional "tend to" standard in
the legislation. Indeed, the "tend to" standard
contained in Section 103 is laigely redundant.
Also, we had never expected to deal with the
most lemote and tangential of possibilities. A
commonsense approach to the problem will lead
one to deal with significant probabilities of anti-
competitive effect, whether the standard were
to read "tend to be inconsistent with," or "in-
consistent with," and the revised report makes
clear that the Commission would deal with sig-
nificant probabilities of effects contrary to the
provisions and policies of the antitrust laws.
Thus, the present content of antitrust law
and policy, a straightforward reading of the
test, and the language of the leport all lead to
dealing with significant probabilities of anti-
competitive effects, fai short of certainty This
is, in our opinion, all that is lequired.
Second, S. 4141 spells out the situations under
which the new standard would apply at the op-
erating licensing stage to applicants who have
received construction permits. Subsection 105c
(2) specifies that if the construction license is
issued prior to enactment of S. 4141, those who
have challenged the license on antitrust grounds
would have standing to challenge them at the
operating license stage. If the construction per-
mit were to be issued after the passage of legis-
lation, a determination of changed ciicumstances
would be lequiied to sustain antitrust review at
the operating license stage.
Third, we think there is a very definite value
to be gained in administrative agencies such as
the AKC considei ing and implementing antitrust
policies in their decision-making processes. Fed-
eral licensing and regulatory agencies directly
affect a very large volume of the nation's com-
merce. Their decision can aid the economy to
become more competitive, or detract fiom its
competitiveness. We think it essential that they
tailor their decisions so as to serve the nation's
general economic policy in favor of competition.
Fouith, we do not see a pressing need for a
change in the antitrust standard of the present
Atomic Energy Act. However, others have
wished to claiify the proceduies for giving and
considering antitrust advice, and we have not
objected to this. Thus, while we do not think
that new legislation on antitiust standards is
necessary, we have not objected, and do not
object, to the enactment of well-drafted new
legislation.
Fifth, we are not aware of direct statutory
precedents for the antitrust standard pioposed
in S. 4141. However, as your letter implies, the
kinship of the language to that used in the Fed-
eral Property and Administrative Services Act
is obvious.
Sixth, we have not experienced difficulty in
determining whether the antitrust test of the
Surplus Property Act could be applied in a
icahstic fashion to sales of Government property
under that Act. We have observed instances in
which the giving of such advice caused the
agency desiring to sell the property to make
decisions it otherwise might not have made.
These decisions were sometimes preceded by
discussions with the agency. This was antici-
pated when the standard was inserted in the
Act, and is to be expected. Otherwise, the stand-
ard would have no effect.
Seventh, we do not think that the standard
proposed in S. 4141 would alter the interpreta-
tion of the U.S. Court of Appeals interpreting
the antitrust standai d to mean "anticipatory
antitrust review."
Sincerely yours,
RICHARD W. MCLAREN,
A ssistant A Homey General, Antitrust
Division.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
MURPHY). The bill is open to further
amendment. If there be no further
amendment to be proposed, the ques-
tion is on the engrossment of the
amendment and third reading of the
bill.
The amendment was ordered to be
engrossed, and the bill to be read a
third time.
The bill was read the third time and
passed.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I
move that the vote by which the bill
was passed be reconsidered.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia and Mr.
AIKEN moved to lay the motion on the
table.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that S. 4141 be
indefinitely postponed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
Without objection, S. 4141 is indef-
initely postponed.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that the Secre-
tary of the Senate be authorized to
make necessary technical and clerical
corrections in the engrossment of the
Senate amendment to H. R. 18679, and
-------
908
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
that the bill, as passed, be printed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I
thank the distinguished majority
leader, the Presiding Officer, the Sen-
ator from Vermont (Mr. AIKEN), and
all my other colleagues.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
the distinguished senior Senator from
Rhode Island is to be highly commended
for successfully steering this measure
through the Senate. Its swift disposi-
tion speaks abundantly for the effective
legislative skill of Senator PASTORE.
The Senate is again most grateful.
The distinguished senior Senator
from Vermont (Mr. AIKEN) is to be
commended equally. His excellent sup-
port and assistance on this measure
were indispensable. The Senate is
again indebted to both of these out-
standing Senators.
[p. 39623]
l.lx(3)(c) Dec. 3: House agrees to Senate amendments, pp. 39818-
39819
AMENDING ATOMIC ENERGY ACT
OP 1954
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, I
ask unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's desk the bill (H.R. 18679) to
amend the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended, to eliminate the require-
ment for a finding of practical value,
and for other purposes, with a Senate
amendment thereto, and concur in the
Senate amendment.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Clerk read the Senate amend-
ment, as follows:
Page 9, strike out all after line 22 over to
and including line 15 on page 14.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
California?
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, re-
serving the right to object, and I shall
not object, will the gentleman from
California explain the purport of the
Senate amendment?
Mr. HOLIFIELD. Mr. Speaker, if
the gentleman will yield, I shall be glad
to do so.
Mr. Speaker, on September 30, the
House passed, by the vote of 345 to 0,
H.R. 18679, a bill which would bring
up to date and revise the provisions of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 in
several respects. This bill had been re-
ported out by the 18-member Joint
Committee on Atomic Energy without
a dissenting vote.
[p.. 39818]
Yesterday, the Senate considered and
passed H.R. 18679, after amending the
bill to delete section 11. The amend-
ment was proposed by the vice chair-
man of the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy, and this move was made with
my acquiescence as chairman of the
Joint Committee.
Section 11 merely emphasized that
the uniquely expert consultative serv-
ices of the National Academy of Sci-
ences and the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measure-
ments should continue to be utilized,
as presently contemplated by subsec-
tion 274 h. of the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954, as amended, in connection with
the formulation of basic radiation pro-
tection standards pertinent to the
health and safety aspects of exposure
to radioactivity resulting from the de-
velopment, use, or control of atomic en-
ergy. Section 11, however, stressed
that these services should be applied
on a continuing and comprehensive
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
909
basis, rather than—as heretofore—in-
frequently or from time to time. Sec-
tion 11 further stressed that the
scientific findings and advice provided
by these preeminent scientific bodies
were to be widely disseminated.
Section 11 would not have prevented
the new Environmental Protection
Agency or any Government agencies
from consulting with and seeking the
advice of any other outside experts
they might select. Section 11, in no
way, inhibited the furnishing of scien-
tific advice. It supported it.
Furthermore, section 11 did not pro-
vide for the setting of standards by the
National Academy of Sciences or the
National Council on Radiation Protec-
tion and Measurements. Responsibil-
ity for setting standards would have
continued to remain in the Executive
—and in the hands of the Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, as desired by
the President.
One further point should be regis-
tered. Section 11 did not add as a new
requirement that the Joint Committee
on Atomic Energy receive reports re-
specting the setting of standards perti-
nent to radioactivity resulting from the
development, use or control of atomic
energy. This requirement has been
legally applicable for many years; it is
contained in section 202 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
In short, section 11 would not have
interfered with the prerogatives of the
President or the functions of the En-
vironmental Protection Agency.
Nevertheless, as a courtesy to the
new Environmental Protection Agency,
I now urge the House to agree to the
deletion of section 11 from H.R. 18679
—not because the provisions are not
worthwhile or are not fully in the pub-
lic interest—but simply to give the new
Environmental Protection Agency a
reasonable period of time in which to
become organized and—without the
need of explicit statutory directions—
to proceed under its present authori-
ties, including the authority in present
subsection 274 h. of the Atomic Energy
Act, to carry out the objectives of sec-
tion 11.
This morning, I wrote a letter to the
Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, informing him of
these thoughts. I would like to read
for the RECORD a copy of my letter to
Mr. Ruckelshaus:
DECEMBERS, 1970.
Hon. WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS,
Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. RUCKELSHAUS: Congratulations on
your favorable reception by the Senate Commit-
tee on Public Works and on the Senate's speedy
confirmation of your nomination.
Yesterday afternoon, in the Senate, Senator
Pastore proposed an amendment to delete Sec-
tion 11 from H.R. 1S679. As you know, this
Section would have revised the provisions of
subsection 274 h. of the Atomic Eneigy Act.
H.R. 18679, as thus amended, was then passed
by the Senate.
As Senator Pastore stated in his presentation
of the amendment, I had acquiesced in the judg-
ment to delete the proposed revision to subsec-
tion 274 h. The amended version of H.R. 18679
will be considered in the House very soon, per-
haps even later today, and I will support and
urge the House to approve the amended version
of H.R. 18679 which was passed by the Senate.
The deletion of Section 11 is really a courtesy
to you and your Agency. I hope the contents of
Section 11, the pertinent portion of the Joint
Committee's report accompanying H.R. 18679,
and my explanation to you of the Committee's
underlying purpose will, in practical effect, re-
main tantamount to a word to the wise. I am
a!so writing to the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget to urge that he help
assure the budgeting and allocation of sufficient
funds to enable the consummation in the near
future of the broadly-scoped arrangements con-
templated by Section 11.
You are aware that the F.R.C. has existing
agreements with the National Academy of Sci-
ences and the National Council on Radiation
Protection and Measurements. The Committee
is deeply concerned that expert scientific advice
on the problem of radiation tolerance should be
secured on a continuing and comprehensive
basis, and it knows of no better or more credible
expert sources than these two distinguished
bodies.
As soon as reasonably practicable after the
Agency is sufficiently oiganized, please advise
this Committee if there appear to be any prob-
lems that could interfere with the initiation of
such arrangements with the National Academy
of Sciences and the National Council on Radia-
tion Piotection and Measurements. Also, as a
general matter and in accordance with the re-
sponsibilities provided for in Section 202 of the
Atomic Energy Act, I request that the Agency
-------
910
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
keep the Joint Committee fully informed, on a
reasonably cm rent basis, of significant events
and activities pertaining to atomic energy.
This Committee wishes the Agency, under
your leadership, great success in its efforts
toward fulfillment of its impoitant mission to
protect the enviionment. With lespect to atomic
energy fields, this Committee stands ready to
assist and cooperate in every reasonable way.
Sincerely,
ClIET HOLIFIELD,
Chairman.
And, Mr. Speaker, I would like to in-
clude after my remarks the letter
which I have directed to Mr. Ruckels-
haus, and to include certain other ex-
traneous and related matter.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, fur-
ther reserving the right to object, and I
shall not do so, I rise to associate my-
self with the comments by the chair-
man of the Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy, the gentleman from California
(Mr. HOLIFIELD). I urge the amend-
ment and passage of the bill as
requested.
I, too, urge—for the reason advanced
by him—that the House approve H.R.
18679, as amended in the Senate yester-
day by deletion of section 11.
At the same time I wish to pose an
important note of caution in regard to
the intent underlying another feature
of this bill. And, as a coauthor of this
bill, I presume that I speak authorita-
tively. I understand that, in the course
of the Senate's consideration of the bill
yesterday, several exchanges of corre-
spondence with the Antitrust Division
of the Department of Justice were in-
serted in the RECORD and alluded to. I
have not yet had an opportunity to read
them, so I cannot comment definitely
on the views and interpretations ad-
vanced in or in connection with these
letters. I want to emphasize as
strongly as I can that the following ex-
cerpt from the statement of presenta-
tion of the bill before the Senate by
Senator PASTORE, vice chairman of the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, is
thoroughly accurate, and I should like
to repeat it now for the RECORD:
Because the language and potential effect of
the existing subsection 105c. are not sufficiently
clear, the committee decided to clarify and
levise this phase of the Commission's licensing
process.
H.R. 18679 does this. Revised subsection
105 c. claiifies the antitrust leview standaid
and specifically describes what the Commission
is to do in relation to the advice received from
the Attorney General. The end product is the
lesult of the committee's exploration of every
facet of the background of this provision, and
of the committee's judgment respecting the
scope and type of leview that AEC ought to
conduct.
The committee and its staff spent many, many
houis on this aspect of the bill, and I can assure
the Senate that we considered very carefully
the,, considerable testimony, comments and opin-
ions we received from intei ested agencies, asso-
ciations, companies and individuals, including
representatives of the Justice Department, from
piivately owned utilities, and from public and
cooperative power interests.
The end pioduct, as delineated in H.R. 18679,
is a carefully perfected compromise by the
committee itself; I want to emphasize that it
does not respect the position, the preference, or
the input of any of the special pleaders inside
or outside of the Government. In the commit-
tee's judgment, revised subsection 105 c., which
the committee carefully put together to the
satisfaction of all of its membeis, constitutes
a balanced, model ate framework for a reason-
able licensing review piocedure.
Thus, the views and opinions ex-
pressed in the letters from the Anti-
trust Division of the Department of
Justice are not necessarily authorita-
tive, and may or may not accurately
represent the intent underlying the
"practical value" provisions of H.R.
18679.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reserva-
tion of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
California?
There was no objection.
The Senate amendment was con-
curred in.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
[p. 39819]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 911
l.ly ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION APPROPRIATION
AUTHORIZATION
August 11,1971, P.L. 92-84, Title II, 3201, 85 Stat. 307
TITLE II
SEC. 201. (a) Subsection a. of section 31 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended, is amended by (1) striking1 the word
"and" from the end of paragraph (4) thereof; (2) striking from
the end of paragraph (5) thereof the period and substituting
therefor ": and" and (3) by adding thereto a new paragraph (6)
to read as follows:
"(6) the preservation and enhancement of a viable environ-
ment by developing more efficient methods to meet the Nation's
energy needs."
l.ly(l) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
H.R. REP. No. 92-325, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971)
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE ATOMIC
ENERGY COMMISSION FOR FISCAL YEAR 1972
JUNE 30, 1971.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union and ordered to be printed
Mr. PRICE of Illinois, from the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy,
submitted the following
REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 9388]
The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, having considered the
matter of authorizing appropriations for the Atomic Energy Com-
mission for fiscal year 1972, hereby report the following bill, and
recommend that the bill do pass.
[P- 1]
* * * :;: * * *
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
TITLE II
Section 201
Section 201 of this bill would amend Sections 31 and 33 of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, to authorize the Commis-
-------
912 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
sion to conduct research and development activities relating to the
preservation and enhancement of a viable environment by devel-
oping more efficient methods to meet the Nation's energy needs.
Under existing authority contained in section 33, the Commis-
sion provides nonnuclear research for others in the fields of public
health and safety which includes environmental matters. This
research for others is provided on a reimbursable basis and is
subject to certain statutory limitations which generally require
a showing that AEC's special competence is particularly needed
by those seeking the research assistance. Existing authority
under section 31 does not permit AEC to conduct in its facilities
for its own account research and development activities in non-
nuclear missions.
The President, in his Energy Message of June 4, 1971, stated
that the key to meeting the Nation's twin goals of supplying ade-
quate energy and protecting the environment in the decades ahead
will be a balanced and imaginative research and development
program. He also said that the Atomic Energy Commission would
perform related
[p. 74]
energy research which may be appropriate as part of the Nation's
overall energy program.
The national laboratories of the AEC are major national assets
which were created, exist, and are needed for AEC's nuclear
missions. These laboratories are staffed by outstanding scientists
in both the physical and life sciences and they are equipped with
facilities that are unique in many respects. The amendments to
sections 31 and 33 would allow the Commission to use these na-
tional laboratories, either for its own account or for others, to
assist in the balanced and imaginative research and development
efforts which are needed for the Nation to continue to know the
blessings of both a high-energy civilization and a beautiful and
healthy environment. Fields such as underground electric trans-
mission and magnetohydrodynamic power cycles are illustrative
examples of the variety of research projects which could be under-
taken by AEC in these national laboratories.
No additional funds are requested because of these amendments.
Rather the amendments simply provide additional authority for
AEC to utilize the talent and scientific resources of its national
laboratories to facilitate research and development for clean
energy.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 913
CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW
In compliance with clause (3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law recommended
by the bill accompanying this report are shown as follows (deleted
material is enclosed in black brackets, new matter printed in italic,
and existing law in which no charge is proposed is shown in
roman):
PUBLIC LAW 83-703
[ATOMIC ENERGY ACT OF 1954, AS AMENDED]
"SEC. 31. RESEARCH ASSISTANCE.—
"(4) utilization of special nuclear material, atomic energy, and
radioactive material and processes entailed in the utilization or
production of atomic energy or such material for all other pur-
poses, including industrial or commercial uses, the generation of
usable energy, and the demonstration of advances in the com-
mercial or industrial application of atomic energy; [and]
"(5) the protection of health and the promotion of safety
during research and production activities!.]; and
"(6) the preservation and enhancement of a viable environ-
ment by developing more efficient methods to meet the Nation's
energy needs.
* # * * * * *
[p. 75]
l.ly(2) JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY
H.K. REP. No. 92-249, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (1971)
[Same as l.ly(l)]
-------
914
LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
l.ly(3) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, VOL. 117 (1971)
l.ly(3)(a) July 15: Considered and passed House, amended, p.
H6764, H6801
Mr. PRICE of Illinois. Mr. Chair-
man, I yield myself 10 minutes.
TITLE II
Section 201 of the bill amends sec-
tions 31 and 33 of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954 without adding any costs to
the AEC program. The amendments
broaden the authority of the AEC to
conduct environmental and energy-re-
lated research for others or under its
own programs in areas other than
those related strictly to nuclear mis-
sions. The dual need for protecting the
environment and supplying adequate
sources of clean electric power, and re-
search and development programs to
meet that need, were stressed by the
President in his energy message to the
Congress. The amendments in section
201 would provide additional authority
for AEC to use the talent and resources
of its national laboratories to facilitate
research and development for clean
energy from all energy sources.
* * * * #
[p. H6764]
* * * * #
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the passage of the bill.
The bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on
the table.
[p. H6801]
l.ly(3)(b) July 20: Considered and passed Senate, amended, p.
S11502
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.ly(3)(c) July 27: House concurred in Senate amendments with
amendment, p. H17189
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
l.ly(3)(d) July 31: Senate concurred in House amendment, p. S12694
[No Relevant Discussion on Pertinent Section]
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 915
1.2 PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT, AS AMENDED,
42 U.S.C. §§203, 215, 241, 242(b), (c), (d), (f), (i), (j), 243,
244, 244a, 245, 246, 247 (1970).
(See, "General 1.12a-1.12ah" for legislative history]
§ 203. Organization of Service
The Service shall consist of (1) the Office of the Surgeon Gen-
eral, (2) the National Institutes of Health, (3) the Bureau of
Medical Services, and (4) the Bureau of State Services. The Sur-
geon General is authorized and directed to assign to the Office of
the Surgeon General, to the National Institutes of Health, to the
Bureau of Medical Services, and to the Bureau of State Services,
respectively, the several functions of the Service, and to establish
within them such divisions, sections, and other units as he may
find necessary; and from time to time abolish, transfer, and con-
solidate divisions, sections, and other units and assign their func-
tions and personnel in such manner as he may find necessary
for efficient operation of the Service. No division shall be estab-
lished, abolished, or transferred, and no divisions shall be con-
solidated, except with the approval of the Secretary. The National
Institutes of Health shall be administered as a part of the field
service. The Surgeon General may delegate to any officer or em-
ployee of the Service such of his powers and duties under this
chapter except the making of regulations, as he may deem neces-
sary or expedient.
July 1, 1944, c. 373, Title II, § 202, 58 Stat. 683; June 16, 1948, c.
481, § 6(b), 62 Stat. 469; 1953 Reorg. Plan No. 1, §§ 5, 8, eff. Apr.
11, 1953, 18 F.R. 2053, 67 Stat. 631.
§ 215. Detail of personnel to governmental departments, States
and subdivisions, and certain institutions; payment of salaries and
allowances
(a) The Secretary is authorized, upon the request of the head
of an executive department, to detail officers or employees of the
Service to such department for duty as agreed upon by the Sec-
retary and the head of such department in order to cooperate in,
or conduct work related to, the functions of such department or
of the Service. When officers or employees are so detailed their
salaries and allowances may be paid from working funds estab-
lished as provided by law or may be paid by the Service from
applicable appropriations and reimbursement may be made as
agreed upon by the Secretary and the head of the executive de-
partment concerned. Officers detailed for duty with the Army, Air
Force, Navy or Coast Guard shall be subject to the laws for the
government of the service to which detailed.
(b) Upon the request of any State health authority or, in the
case of work relating to mental health, any State mental health
-------
916 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
authority, personnel of the Service may be detailed by the Surgeon
General for the purpose of assisting such State or a political sub-
division thereof in work related to the functions of the Service.
(c) The Surgeon General may detail personnel of the Service
to nonprofit educational, research, or other institutions engaged in
health activities for special studies of scientific problems and for
the dissemination of information relating to public health.
(d) Personnel detailed under subsections (b) and (c) of this
section shall be paid from applicable appropriations of the Service,
except that, in accordance with regulations such personnel may be
placed on leave without pay and paid by the State, subdivision,
or institution to which they are detailed. The services of personnel
while detailed pursuant to this section shall be considered as
having been performed in the Service for purposes of the compu-
tation of basic pay, promotion, retirement, compensation for in-
jury or death, and the benefits provided by section 213 of this
title.
July 1, 1944, c. 373, Title II, § 214, 58 Stat. 690; July 3, 1946, c.
538, § 6, 60 Stat. 423; Oct. 12, 1949, c. 681, Title V, § 521 (e), 63
Stat. 835; 1953 Reorg. Plan No. 1, §§ 5, 8, eff. April 11, 1953, 18
F.R. 2053, 67 Stat. 631.
SUBCHAPTER II.—GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES
Part A.—Research and Investigations
§ 241. Research and investigations generally
The Surgeon General shall conduct in the Service, and encour-
age, cooperate with, and render assistance to other appropriate
public authorities, scientific institutions, and scientists in the con-
duct of, and promote the coordination of, research, investigations,
experiments, demonstrations, and studies relating to the causes,
diagnosis, treatment, control, and prevention of physical and men-
tal diseases and impairments of man, including water purification,
sewage treatment, and pollution of lakes and streams. In carrying
out the foregoing the Surgeon General is authorized to—
(a) Collect and make available through publications and other
appropriate means, information as to, and the practical applica-
tion of, such research and other activities;
(b) Make available research facilities of the Service to appro-
priate public authorities, and to health officials and scientists
engaged in special study;
(c) Establish and maintain research fellowships in the Service
with such stipends and allowances, including traveling and sub-
sistence expenses, as he may deem necessary to procure the as-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 917
sistance of the most brilliant and promising research fellows
from the United States and abroad;
(d) Make grants-in-aid to universities, hospitals, laboratories,
and other public or private institutions, and to individuals for
such research or research training projects as are recommended
by the National Advisory Health Council, or, with respect to
cancer, recommended by the National Advisory Cancer Council, or,
with respect to mental health, recommended by the National
Advisory Mental Health Council, or, with respect to heart diseases,
recommended by the National Advisory Heart Council, or, with
respect to dental disease and conditions, recommended by the
National Advisory Dental Research Council; and include in the
grants for any such project grants of penicillin and other anti-
biotic compounds for use in such project; and make, upon recom-
mendation of the National Advisory Health Council, grants-in-aid
to public or nonprofit universities, hospitals, laboratories, and
other institutions for the general support of their research and
research training programs: Provided, That such uniform per-
centage, not to exceed 15 per centum, as the Surgeon General may
determine, of the amounts provided for grants for research or
research training projects for any fiscal year through the appro-
priations for the National Institutes of Health may be transferred
from such appropriations to a separate account to be available
for such research and research training program grants-in-aid
for such fiscal year ;
(e) Secure from time to time and for such periods as he deems
advisable, the assistance and advice of experts, scholars, and con-
sultants from the United States or abroad;
(f) For purposes of study, admit and treat at institutions, hos-
pitals, and stations of the Service, persons not otherwise eligible
for such treatment;
(g) Make available, to health officials, scientists, and appro-
priate public and other nonprofit institutions and organizations,
technical advice and assistance on the application of statistical
methods to experiments, studies, and surveys in health and medi-
cal fields;
(h) Enter into contracts during the fiscal year ending June 30,
1966, and each of the eight succeding fiscal years, including con-
tracts for research in accordance with and subject to the provi-
sions of law applicable to contracts entered into by the military
departments under sections 2353 and 2354 of Title 10, except that
determination, approval, and certification required thereby shall
be by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare; and
-------
918 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
(i) Adopt, upon recommendation of the National Advisory
Health Council, or, with respect to cancer, upon recommendation
of the National Advisory Cancer Council, or, with respect to
mental health, upon recommendation of the National Advisory
Mental Health Council, or, with respect to heart diseases, upon
recommendation of the National Advisory Heart Council, or, with
respect to dental diseases and conditions, upon recommendations
of the National Advisory Dental Research Council, such addi-
tional means as he deems necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this section,
July 1, 1944, c. 373, Title III, § 301, 58 Stat. 691; July 3, 1946, c.
538, § 7 (a, b), 60 Stat. 423; June 16, 1948, c. 481, § 4(e, f), 62
Stat. 467; June 24, 1948, c. 621, § 4(e, f), 62 Stat. 601; June 25,
1948, c. 654, § 1, 62 Stat. 1017; July 3, 1956, c. 510, § 4, 70 Stat.
490; Sept. 15, 1960, Pub.L. 86-798, 74 Stat. 1053; Oct. 17, 1962,
Pub.L. 87-838, § 2, 76 Stat. 1073; Aug. 9,1965, Pub.L. 89-115, § 3,
79 Stat. 448; Dec. 5, 1967, Pub.L. 90-174, § 9, 81 Stat. 540; and
amended Oct. 30, 1970, Pub.L. 91-515, Title II, § 292, 84 Stat.
1308.
§ 242b. Research and demonstrations relating to health facilities
and services—Grants and contracts for projects for research,
experiments, or demonstrations and related training; cost limita-
tion; wage rates, labor standards, and other conditions; payments
(a) (1) The Secretary is authorized—
(A) to make grants to States, political subdivisions, uni-
versities, hospitals, and other public or nonprofit private
agencies, institutions, or organizations for projects for the
conduct of research, experiments, or demonstrations (and
related training), and
(B) to make contracts with public or private agencies,
institutions, or organizations for the conduct of research,
experiments, or demonstrations (and related training),
relating to the development, utilization, quality, organization, and
financing of services, facilities, and resources of hospitals, facili-
ties for long-term care, or other medical facilities (including, for
purposes of this section, facilities for the mentally retarded, as
defined in the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community
Mental Health Centers Construction Act of 1963), agencies, insti-
tutions, or organizations or to development of new methods or
improvement of existing methods of organization, delivery, or
financing of health services, including, among others—
(i) projects for the construction of units of hospitals,
facilities for long-term care, or other medical facilities which
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 919
involve experimental architectural designs or functional lay-
out or use of new materials or new methods of construction,
the efficiency of which can be tested and evaluated, or which
involve the demonstration of such efficiency, particularly
projects which also involve research, experiments, or demon-
strations relating to delivery of health services, and
(ii) projects for development and testing of new equipment
and systems, including automated equipment, and other new
technology systems or concepts for the delivery of health
services, and
(iii) projects for research and demonstration in new
careers in health manpower and new ways of educating and
utilizing health manpower, and
(iv) projects for research, experiments, and demonstra-
tions dealing with the effective combination or coordination
of public, private, or combined public-private methods or
systems for the delivery of health services at regional, State,
or local levels, and
(v) projects for research and demonstrations in the provi-
sion of home health services.
(2) Except where the Secretary determines that unusual cir-
cumstances make a larger percentage necessary in order to effec-
tuate the purposes of this subsection, a grant or contract under
this subsection with respect to any project for construction of a
facility or for acquisition of equipment may not provide for
payment of more than 50 per centum of so much of the cost of
the facility or equipment as the Secretary determines is reason-
ably attributable to research, experimental, or demonstration
purposes. The provisions of clause (5) of the third sentence of
section 291e(a) of this title and such other conditions as the
Secretary may determine shall apply with respect to grants or
contracts under this subsection for projects for construction of
a facility or for acquisition of equipment.
(3) (A) Payments of any grants or under any contracts under
this subsection may be made in advance or by way of reimburse-
ment, and in such installments and on such conditions as the
Secretary deems necessary to carry out the purposes of this
subsection.
(B) The amounts otherwise payable to any person under a
grant or contract made under this subsection shall be reduced by—
(i) amounts equal to the fair market value of any equip-
ment or supplies furnished to such person by the Secretary
for the purpose of carrying out the project with respect to
which such grant or contract is made, and
-------
920 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
(ii) amounts equal to the pay, allowances, traveling ex-
penses, and related personnel expenses attributable to the
performance of services by an officer or employee of the
Government in connection with such project, if such officer
or employee was assigned or detailed by the Secretary to
perform such services,
but only if such person requested the Secretary to furnish such
equipment or supplies, or such services, as the case may be.
Systems analysis of national health care plans; cost and coverage report on
existing legislative proposals
(b) (1) (A) The Secretary shall develop, through utilization
of the systems analysis method, plans for health care systems
designed adequately to meet the health needs of the American
people. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the systems
analysis method means the analytical method by which various
means of obtaining a desired result or goal is associated with the
costs and benefits involved.
(B) The Secretary shall complete the development of the plans
referred to in subparagraph (A), within such period as may be
necessary to enable him to submit to the Congress not later than
September 30, 1971, a report thereon which shall describe each
plan so developed in terms of—
(i) the number of people who would be covered under the
plan;
(ii) the kind and type of health care which would be
covered under the plan;
(iii) the cost involved in carrying out the plan and how
such costs would be financed;
(iv) the number of additional physicians and other health
care personnel and the number and type of health care
facilities needed to enable the plan to become fully effective;
(v) the new and improved methods, if any, of delivery of
health care services which would be developed in order to
effectuate the plan;
(vi) the accessibility of the benefits of such plan to various
socioeconomic classes of persons;
(vii) the relative effectiveness and efficiency of such plan
as compared to existing means of financing and delivering
health care; and
(viii) the legislative, administrative, and other actions
which would be necessary to implement the plan.
(C) In order to assure that the advice and service of experts
in the various fields concerned will be obtained in the plans
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 921
authorized by this paragraph and that the purposes of this para-
graph will fully be carried out—
(i) the Secretary shall utilize, whenever appropriate, per-
sonnel from the various agencies, bureaus, and other depart-
mental subdivisions of the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare;
(ii) the Secretary is authorized, with the consent of the
head of the department or agency involved, to utilize (on a
reimbursable basis) the personnel and other resources of
other departments and agencies of the Federal Government;
and
(iii) the Secretary is authorized to consult with appro-
priate State or local public agencies, private organizations,
and individuals.
(2) (A) The Secretary shall, in accordance with this para-
graph, conduct a study of each legislative proposal which is
introduced in the Senate or the House of Representatives during
the Ninety-first Congress, and which undertakes to establish a
national health insurance plan or similar plan designed to meet
the needs of health insurance or for health services of all or the
overwhelming majority of the people of the United States.
(B) In conducting such study with respect to each such legis-
lative proposal, the Secretary shall evaluate and analyze such
proposal with a view to determining—
(i) The costs of carrying out the proposal; and
(ii) the adequacy of the proposal in terms of (I) the por-
tion of the population covered by the proposal, (II) the type
health care provided, paid for, or insured against under the
proposal, (III) whether, and if so, to what extent, the
proposal provides for the development of new and improved
methods for the delivery of health care and services.
(C) Not later than March 31, 1971, the Secretary shall submit
to the Congress a report on each legislative proposal which he has
been directed to study under this paragraph, together with an
analysis and evaluation of such proposal.
Authorization of appropriations
(c) (1) There are authorized to be appropriated for payment
of grants or under contracts under subsection (a) of this section,
and for purposes of carrying out the provisions of subsection (b)
of this section, $71,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1971 (of which not less than $2,000,000 shall be available only
for purposes of carrying out the provisions of subsection (b))
-------
922 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
of this section, $82,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1972, and $94,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973.
(2) In addition to the funds authorized to be appropriated
under paragraph (1) to carry out the provisions of subsection
(b) of this section there are hereby authorized to be appropriated
to carry out such provisions for each fiscal year such sums as
may be necessary.
July I, 1944, c. 373, Title III, § 304, as added July 28, 1955, c.
417, § 3, 69 Stat. 382, and amended Aug. 2, 1956, c. 871, Title V,
§ 502, 70 Stat. 930; Dec. 5, 1967, Pub.L. 90-174, § 3(a), 81 Stat.
534; and amended June 30, 1970, Pub.L. 91-296, Title IV, §
401 (b) (1) (A), 84 Stat. 352; Oct. 30, 1970, Pub.L. 91-515,
Title II, §§ 201-203, 84 Stat, 1301, 1303.
§ 242c. National health surveys and studies—Determination of
extent of illness and disability and related information; develop-
ment and test of methods for obtaining current data; use and
publication of information
(a) The Surgeon General is authorized (1) to make, by sam-
pling or other appropriate means, surveys and special studies of
the population of the United States to determine the extent of
illness and disability and related information such as: (A) the
number, age, sex, ability to work or engage in other activities,
and occupation or activities of persons afflicted with chronic or
other disease or injury or handicapping condition; (B) the type
of disease or injury or handicapping condition of each person so
afflicted; (C) the length of time that each such person has been
prevented from carrying on his occupation or activities; (D) the
amounts and types of services received for or because of such
conditions; (E) the economic and other impacts of such condi-
tions; (F) health care resources; (G) environmental and social
health hazards; and (H) family formation, growth, and dissolu-
tion; and (2) in connection therewith, to develop and test new
or improved methods for obtaining current data on illness and
disability and related information. No information obtained in
accordance with this paragraph may be used for any purpose
other than the statistical purposes for which it was supplied
except pursuant to regulations of the Secretary; nor may any
such information be published if the particular establishment or
person supplying it is identifiable except with the consent of such
establishment or person.
Development of uniform system of health information and statistics
(b) The Secretary is authorized, directly or by contract, to
undertake research, development, demonstration, and evaluation,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 923
relating to the design and implementation of a cooperative system
for producing- comparable and uniform health information and
statistics at the Federal, State, and local levels.
Publication of results
(c) The Surgeon General is authorized, at appropriate intervals,
to make available, through publications and otherwise, to any
interested governmental or other public or private agencies, orga-
nizations, or groups, or to the public, the results of surveys or
studies made pursuant to subsection (a) of this section.
Authorization of appropriations
(d) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
section $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971,
$20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and $25,000,-
000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973.
Cooperation with other Governmental or State agencies
(e) To assist in carrying out the provisions of this section the
Surgeon General is authorized and directed to cooperate and
consult with the Departments of Commerce and Labor and any
other interested Federal Departments or agencies and with State
health departments. For such purpose he shall utilize insofar as
possible the services or facilities of any agency of the Federal
Government and, without regard to section 5 of Title 41, of any
appropriate State or other public agency, and may, without regard
to section 5 of Title 41, utilize the services or facilities of any
private agency, organization, group, or individual, in accordance
with written agreements between the head of such agency, orga-
nization, or group, or such individual, and the Secretary of Health,
Education, and Welfare. Payment, if any, for such services or
facilities shall be made in such amounts as may be provided in
such agreement.
July 1, 1944, c. 373, Title III, § 305, as added July 3, 1956, c. 510,
§ 3, 70 Stat. 490; and amended Oct. 30, 1970, Pub.L. 91-515,
Title II, § 210, 84 Stat. 1303.
§ 242d. Graduate or specialized training for physicians, engi-
neers, nurses, and other professional personnel—Appropriations
(a) There are authorized to be appropriated for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1957, and for each of the next twelve fiscal years,
such sums as the Congress may determine, but not to exceed
$4,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1965, $7,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, $8,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1967, $10,000,000 each for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1968, and the two succeeding fiscal years,
-------
924 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
$14,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $16,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and $18,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, to cover the cost of traineeships
for graduate or specialized training in public health for physi-
cians, engineers, nurses, sanitarians, and other professional health
personnel.
Awards of traineeships to individuals or institutions
(b) Traineeships under this section may be awarded by the
Surgeon General either (1) directly to individuals whose applica-
tions for admission have been accepted by the public or other
nonprofit institutions providing the training, or (2) through
grants to such institutions.
Payments; time; conditions; limitations
(c) Payments under this section may be made in advance or
by way of reimbursement, and at such intervals and on such
conditions, as the Surgeon General finds necessary. Such payments
to institutions may be used only for traineeships, and payments
under this section with respect to any traineeship shall be limited
to such amounts as the Surgeon General finds necessary to cover
the cost of tuition and fees, and a stipend and allowances (includ-
ing travel and subsistence expenses) for the trainee.
Advisory committee; composition and functions
(d) The Surgeon General shall appoint an expert advisory com-
mittee, composed of persons representative of the principal health
specialties in the fields of public health administration and train-
ing, to advise him in connection with the administration of this
section and section 242g of this title, including the development
of program standards and policies and including, in the case of
section 242g of this title; certification to the Surgeon General of
projects which it has reviewed and approved.
Conference; representatives; appraisal of traineeships; report and
recommendations
(e) The Surgeon General shall, between June 30, 1958, and
December 1, 1958, call a conference broadly representative of the
professional and training groups interested in and informed
about training of professional public health personnel, and includ-
ing members of the advisory committee appointed pursuant to
subsection (d) of this section, to assist him in appraising the
effectiveness of the traineeships under this section in meeting
the needs for trained public health personnel; in considering
modifications in this section, if any, which may be desirable to
increase its effectiveness; and in considering the most effective
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 925
distribution of responsibilities between Federal and State govern-
ments with respect to the administration and support of public
health training. The Surgeon General shall submit to the Congress,
on or before January 1, 1959, a report of such conference, includ-
ing any recommendations by it relating to the limitation, exten-
sion, or modification of this section. The Surgeon General shall,
between June 30, 1963, and December 1, 1963, call a similar
conference, and shall submit to the Congress, on or before
January 1, 1964, a report of such conference, including any
recommendations by it relating to the limitation, extension, or
modification of this section. The Surgeon General shall, between
June 30, 1967, and December 1, 1967, call a similar conference,
and shall submit to the Congress, on or before January 1, 1968,
a report of such conference, including any recommendations by
it relating to the limitation, extension, or modification of this
section.
Supervision of personnel or curriculum
(f) Except as otherwise provided in this section, nothing con-
tained in this section shall be construed as authorizing any depart-
ment, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise
any direction, supervision, or control over the personnel or
curriculum of any training institution.
July 1, 1944, c. 373, Title III, § 306, as added Aug. 2, 1956, c. 871,
Title I, § 101, 70 Stat. 923, and amended July 23, 1959, Pub.L.
86-105, § 1, 73 Stat. 239; Sept. 8, 1960, Pub.L. 86-720, § l(b),
74 Stat. 820; Aug. 27, 1964, Pub.L. 88-497, § 2, 78 Stat. 613;
Aug. 16, 1968, Pub.L. 90-490, Title III, § 302 (b), 82 Stat. 789;
and amended Mar. 12, 1970, Pub.L. 91-208, § 3, 84 Stat. 52;
Oct. 30, 1970, Pub.L. 91-515, Title VI, § 601 (b) (2), 84 Stat. 1311.
§242f. International cooperation—Use of health research and
research training resources
(a) To carry out the purposes of clause (1) of section 2101 of
Title 22, the Surgeon General may, in the exercise of his authority
under this chapter and other provisions of law to conduct and
support health research and research training, make such use of
health research and research training resources in participating
foreign countries as he may deem necessary and desirable.
Fellowships; equipment; meetings and conferences; interchange of scientists
and experts; consultants; compensation and travel expenses
(b) In carrying out his responsibilities under this section the
Surgeon General may—
-------
926 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
(1) establish and maintain fellowships in the United States
and in participating foreign countries;
(2) make grants to public institutions or agencies and to
nonprofit private institutions or agencies in the United States
and in participating foreign countries for the purpose of
establishing and maintaining fellowships;
(3) make grants or loans of equipment, medical, biological,
physical, or chemical substances or other materials, for use by
public institutions or agencies, or nonprofit private institu-
tions or agencies, or by individuals, in participating foreign
countries;
(4) participate and otherwise cooperate in any interna-
tional health research or research training meetings, confer-
ences, or other activities;
(5) facilitate the interchange between the United States
and participating foreign countries, and among participating
foreign countries, of research scientists and experts who are
engaged in experiments and programs of research or research
training, and in carrying out such purpose may pay per
diem compensation, subsistence, and travel for such scientists
and experts when away from their places of residence at rates
not to exceed those provided in section 73b—2 of Title 5 for
persons in the Government service employed intermittently;
and
(6) procure, in accordance with the provisions of section
55a of Title 5, the temporary or intermittent services of
experts or consultants; individuals so employed shall receive
compensation at a rate to be fixed by the Secretary, but not
in excess of $50 per diem, including travel time, and while
away from their homes or regular places of business may be
allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of sub-
sistence, as authorized by section 73b—2 of Title 5 for persons
in the Government service employed intermittently.
Building construction prohibition
(c) The Surgeon General may not, in the exercise of his author-
ity under this section, assist in the construction of buildings for
research or research training in any foreign country.
Definitions
(d) For the purposes of this section—
(1) The term "health research" shall include, but not be
limited to, research, investigations, and studies relating to
causes and methods of prevention of accidents, including but
not limited to highway and aviation accidents.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 927
(2) The term "participating foreign countries" means
those foreign countries which cooperate with the United
States in carrying out the purposes of this section.
July 1,1944, c. 373, Title III, § 308, as added July 12, 1960, Pub.L.
86-610, § 3, 74 Stat. 364.
§ 242i. Administration of grants in multigrant projects; pro-
mulgation or regulations
For the purpose of facilitating the administration of, and expe-
diting the carrying out of the purposes of, the programs estab-
lished by subchapter VII of this chapter, and sections 242b,
246(a), 246(b), 246(c), 246(d), and 246(e) of this title in
situations in which grants are sought or made under two or more
of such programs with respect to a single project, the Secretary
is authorized to promulgate regulations—
(1) under which the administrative functions under such
programs with respect to such project will be performed by a
single administrative unit which is the administrative unit
charged with the administration of any of such programs or
is the administrative unit charged with the supervision of
two or more of such programs;
(2) designed to reduce the number of applications, reports,
and other materials required under such programs to be sub-
mitted with respect to such project, and otherwise to simplify,
consolidate, and make uniform (to the extent feasible), the
data and information required ta be contained in such appli-
cations, reports, and other materials; and
(3) under which inconsistent or duplicative requirements
imposed by such programs will be revised and made uniform
with respect to such project;
except that nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize
the Secretary to waive or suspend, with respect to any such
project, any requirement with respect to any of such programs
if such requirement is imposed by law or by any regulation
required by law.
July 1, 1944, c. 373, Title III, § 310A, as added Oct. 30, 1970,
Pub.L. 91-515, Title II, § 270, 84 Stat. 1306.
§ 242j. Annual report by Secretary on activities related to health
facilities and services and expenditure of funds
On or before January 1 of each year, the Secretary shall trans-
mit to the Congress a report of the activities carried on under the
provisions of subchapter VII of this chapter and sections 242b,
242c, 246(a), 246(b), 246(c), 246(d), and 246(e) of this title
together with (1) an evaluation of the effectiveness of such
-------
928 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
activities in improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the
research, planning, and delivery of health services in carrying out
the purposes for which such provisions were enacted, (2) a state-
ment of the relationship between Federal financing and financing
from other sources of the activities undertaken pursuant to such
provisions (including the possibilities for more efficient support
of such activities through use of alternate sources of financing
after an initial period of support under such provisions), and
(3) such recommendations with respect to such provisions as he
deems appropriate.
July 1, 1944, c. 373, Title III, § 310B, as added Oct. 30, 1970,
Pub.L. 91-515, Title II, § 280, 84 Stat. 1307.
Part B.—Federal-State Cooperation
§ 243. General grant of authority for cooperation—Enforcement
of quarantine regulations; prevention of communicable diseases
(a) The Secretary is authorized to accept from State and local
authorities any assistance in the enforcement of quarantine regu-
lations made pursuant to this chapter which such authorities may
be able and willing to provide. The Secretary shall also assist
States and their political subdivisions in the prevention and sup-
pression of communicable diseases, shall cooperate with and aid
State and local authorities in the enforcement of their quarantine
and other health regulations and in carrying out the purposes
specified in section 246 of this title, and shall advise the several
States on matters relating to the preservation and improvement
of the public health.
Comprehensive and continuing planning; training of personnel for State and
local health work
(b) The Secretary shall encourage cooperative activities be-
tween the States with respect to comprehensive and continuing
planning as to their current and future health needs, the establish-
ment and maintenance of adequate public health services, and
otherwise carrying out the purposes of section 246 of this title.
The Secretary is also authorized to train personnel for State and
local health work.
Problems resulting from disasters; emergencies; reimbursement of United
States
(c) The Secretary may enter into agreements providing for co-
operative planning between Public Health Service medical facili-
ties and community health facilities to cope with health problems
resulting from disasters, and for participation by Public Health
Service medical facilities in carrying out such planning. He may
also, at the request of the appropriate State or local authority,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 929
extend temporary (not in excess of forty-five days) assistance to
States or localities in meeting health emergencies of such a nature
as to warrant Federal assistance. The Secretary may require such
reimbursement of the United States for aid (other than planning)
under the preceding sentences of this subsection as he may deter-
mine to be reasonable under the circumstances. Any reimburse-
ment so paid shall be credited to the applicable appropriation of
the Public Health Service for the year in which such reimburse-
ment is received.
July 1, 1944, c. 373, Title III, § 311, 58 Stat. 693; Nov. 3, 1966,
Pub.L. 89-749, § 5, 80 Stat. 1190; Dec. 5, 1967, Pub.L. 90-174,
§ 4, 81 Stat. 536; and amended Oct. 30, 1970, Pub.L. 91-515, Title
II, § 282, 84 Stat. 1308.
§ 244. Health conferences
A conference of the health authorities of the several States shall
be called annually by the Secretary. Whenever in his opinion the
interests of the public health would be promoted by a conference,
the Secretary may invite as many of such health authorities and
officials of other State or local public or private agencies, institu-
tions, or organizations to confer as he deems necessary or proper.
Upon the application of health authorities of five or more States it
shall be the duty of the Secretary to call a conference of all State
and Territorial health authorities joining in the request. Each
State represented at any conference shall be entitled to a single
vote. Whenever at any such conference matters relating to mental
health are to be discussed, the mental health authorities of the
respective States shall be invited to attend.
July 1, 1944, c. 373, Title III, § 312, 58 Stat. 693; July 3, 1946, c.
538, § 8, 60 Stat. 424; Dec. 5, 1967, Pub.L. 90-174, § 12 (b), 81
Stat. 541; and amended Oct. 30, 1970, Pub.L. 91-515, Title II,
§ 282, 84 Stat. 1308.
§ 244a. Birth and death statistics; annual collection; compensa-
tion for transcription
There shall be a collection of the statistics of the births and
deaths in registration areas annually, the data for which shall be
obtained only from and restricted to such registration records of
such States and municipalities as in the discretion of the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare possess records affording satis-
factory data in necessary detail, the compensation for the tran-
scription of which shall not exceed 4 cents for each birth or death
reported; or a minimum compensation of $25 may be allowed in
the discretion of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare,
-------
930 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
in States or cities registering less than five hundred deaths or five
hundred births during the preceding year.
July 1, 1944, c. 373, Title III, § 312a, as added Aug. 31, 1954, c.
1158, § 2, 68 Stat. 1025.
§ 245. Collection of vital statistics
To secure uniformity in the registration of mortality, morbidity,
and vital statistics the Secretary shall prepare and distribute suit-
able and necessary forms for the collection and compilation of such
statistics which shall be published as a part of the health reports
published by the Secretary.
July 1, 1944, c. 373, Title III, § 313, 58 Stat. 693; and amended
Oct. 30, 1970, Pub.L. 91-515, Title II, § 282, 84 Stat. 1308.
§ 246. Grants and services to States—Comprehensive health
planning and services
(a) (1) In order to assist the States in comprehensive and
continuing planning for their current and future health needs, the
Secretary is authorized during the period beginning July 1, 1966,
and ending June 30, 1973, to make grants to States which have
submitted, and had approved by the Secretary, State plans for
comprehensive State health planning. For the purposes of carry-
ing out this subsection, there are hereby authorized to be appro-
priated $2,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967,
$7,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $10,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, $15,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1970, $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1971, $17,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972,
and $20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973.
(2) In order to be approved for purposes of this subsection, a
State plan for comprehensive State health planning must—
(A) designate, or provide for the establishment of, a single
State agency, which may be an interdepartmental agency, as
the sole agency for administering or supervising the admin-
istration of the State's health planning functions under the
plan;
(B) provide for the establishment of a State health plan-
ning council, which shall include representatives of Federal,
State, and local agencies (including as an ex-officio member,
if there is located in such State one or more hospitals or other
health care facilities of the Veterans' Administration, the
individual whom the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs shall
have designated to serve on such council as the representative
of the hospitals or other health care facilities of such Ad-
ministration which are located in such State) and nongovern-
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 931
mental organizations and groups concerned with health, (in-
cluding representation of the regional medical program or
programs included in whole or in part within the State) and
of consumers of health services, to advise such State agency
in carrying out its functions under the plan, and a majority
of the membership of such council shall consist of representa-
tives of consumers of health services;
(C) set forth policies and procedures for the expenditure
of funds under the plan, which, in the judgment of the Secre-
tary are designed to provide for comprehensive State plan-
ning for health services (both public and private) and
including home health care, including the facilities and per-
sons required for the provision of such services, to meet the
health needs of the people of the State and including environ-
mental considerations as they relate to public health;
(D) provide for encouraging cooperative efforts among
governmental or nongovernmental agencies, organizations
and groups concerned with health services, facilities, or man-
power, and for cooperative efforts between such agencies,
organizations, and groups and similar agencies, organizations,
and groups in the fields of education, welfare, and rehabilita-
tion;
(E) contain or be supported by assurances satisfactory to
the Secretary that the funds paid under this subsection will
be used to supplement and, to the extent practicable, to in-
crease the level of funds that would otherwise be made avail-
able by the State for the purpose of comprehensive health
planning and not to supplant such non-Federal funds;
(F) provide such methods of administration (including
methods relating to the establishment and maintenance of
personnel standards on a merit basis, except that the Secre-
tary shall exercise no authority with respect to the selection,
tenure of office, and compensation of any individual employed
in accordance with such methods) as are found by the Secre-
tary to be necessary for the proper and efficient operation of
the plan ;
(G) provide that the State agency will make such reports,
in such form and containing such information, as the Secre-
tary may from time to time reasonably require, and will keep
such records and afford such access thereto as the Secretary
finds necessary to assure the correctness and verification of
such reports;
(H) provide that the State agency will from time to time,
but not less often than annually, review its State plan ap-
-------
932 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
proved under this subsection and submit to the Secretary ap-
propriate modifications thereof;
(I) effective July 1, 1968, (i) provide for assisting each
health care facility in the State to develop a program for
capital expenditures for replacement, modernization, and ex-
pansion which is consistent with an overall State plan devel-
oped in accordance with criteria established by the Secretary
after consultation with the State which will meet the needs of
the State for health care facilities, equipment, and services
without duplication and otherwise in the most efficient and
economical manner, and (ii) provide that the State agency
furnishing such assistance will periodically review the pro-
gram (developed pursuant to clause (i)) of each health care
facility in the State and recommend appropriate modification
thereof;
(J) provide for such fiscal control and fund accounting
procedures as may be necessary to assure proper disburse-
ment of and accounting for funds paid to the State under this
subsection; and
(K) contain such additional information and assurances
as the Secretary may find necessary to carry out the purposes
of this subsection.
(3) (A) From the sums appropriated for such purpose for
each fiscal year, the several States shall be entitled to allotments
determined, in accordance with regulations, on the basis of the
population and the per capita capital income of the respective
States; except that no such allotment to any State for any fiscal
year shall be less than 1 per centum of the sum appropriated for
such fiscal year pursuant to paragraph (1). Any such allotment
to a State for a fiscal year shall remain available for obligation
by the State, in accordance with the provisions of this subsection
and the State's plan approved thereunder, until the close of the
succeeding fiscal year.
(B) The amount of any allotment to a State under subparagraph
(A) for any fiscal year which the Secretary determines will not be
required by the State, during the period for which it is available,
for the purposes for which allotted shall be available for reallot-
ment by the Secretary from time to time, on such date or dates as
he may fix, to other States with respect to which such a determina-
tion has not been made, in proportion to the original allotments
to such States under subparagraph (A) for such fiscal year, but
with such proportionate amount for any of such other States being
reduced to the extent it exceeds the sum the Secretary estimates
such State needs and will be able to use during such period; and
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 933
the total of such reductions shall be similarly reallotted among the
States whose proportionate amounts were not so reduced. Any
amount so reallotted to a State from funds appropriated pursuant
to this subsection for a fiscal year shall be deemed part of its
allotment under subparagraph (A) for such fiscal year.
(4) From each State's allotment for a fiscal year under this
subsection, the State shall from time to time be paid the Federal
share of the expenditures incurred during that year or the succeed-
ing year pursuant to its State plan approved under this subsection.
Such payments shall be made on the basis of estimates by the
Secretary of the sums the State will need in order to perform the
planning under its approved State plan under this subsection, but
with such adjustments as may be necessary to take account of
previously made underpayments or overpayments. The "Federal
share" for any State for purposes of this subsection shall be all,
or such part as the Secretary may determine, of the cost of such
planning, except that in the case of the allotments for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1970, it shall not exceed 75 per centum of
such cost.
Project grants for areawide health planning; authorization of appropriations;
prerequisites for grants; application; contents
(b) (1) (A) The Secretary is authorized, during the period
beginning July 1, 1966, and ending June 30, 1973, to make, with
the approval of the State agency administering or supervising the
administration of the State plan approved under subsection (a) of
this section, project grants to any other public or nonprofit private
agency or organization (but with appropriate representation of
the interests of local government where the recipient of the grant
is not a local government or combination thereof or an agency of
such government or combination) to cover not to exceed 75 per
centum of the cost of projects for developing (and from time to
time revising) comprehensive regional, metropolitan area, or other
local area plans for coordination of existing and planned health
services, including the facilities and persons required for provi-
sion of such services; and including the provision of such services
through home health care except that in the case of project grants
made in any State prior to July 1, 1968, approval of such State
agency shall be required only if such State has such a State plan
in effect at the time of such grants. No grant may be made under
this subsection after June 30, 1970, to any agency or organization
to de -elop or revise health plans for an area unless the Secretary
determines that such agency or organization provides means for
appropriate representation of the interests of the hospitals, other
-------
934 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
health care facilities, and practicing physicians serving such area,
and the general public. For the purposes of carrying out this sub-
section, there are hereby authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, $7,500,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1968, $10,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1969, $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1970, $20,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971, $30,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and $40,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973.
(B) Project grants may be made by the Secretary under sub-
paragraph (A) to the State agency administering or supervising
the administration of the State plan approved under subsection
(a) of this section with respect to a particular region or area, but
only if (i) no application for such a grant with respect to such
region or area has been filed by any other agency or organization
qualified to receive such a grant, and (ii) such State agency certi-
fies, and the Secretary finds, that ample opportunity has been
afforded to qualified agencies and organizations to file application
for such a grant with respect to such region or area and that it
is improbable that, in the foreseeable future, any agency or orga-
nization which is qualified for such a grant will file application
therefor.
(2) (A) In order to be approved under this subsection, an
application for a grant under this subsection must contain or be
supported by reasonable assurances that there has been or will be
established, in or for the area with respect to which such grant is
sought, an areawide health planning council. The membership of
such council shall include representatives of public, voluntary, and
nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and organizations con-
cerned with health (including representatives of the interests of
local government, of the regional medical program for such area,
and of consumers of health services). A majority of the members
of such council shall consist of representatives of consumers of
health services.
(B) In addition, an application for a grant under this subsec-
tion must contain or be supported by reasonable assurances that
the areawide health planning agency has made provision for as-
sisting health care facilities in its area to develop a program for
capital expenditures for replacement, modernization, and expan-
sion which is consistent with an overall State plan which will meet
the needs of the State and the area for health care facilities, equip-
ment, and services without duplication and otherwise in the most
efficient and economical manner.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 935
Project grants for training, studies, and demonstration; authorization of
appropriations
(c) The Secretary is also authorized, during the period begin-
ning July 1, 1966, and ending June 30, 1973, to make grants to
any public or nonprofit private agency, institution, or other or-
ganization to cover all or any part of the cost of projects for
training, studies, or demonstrations looking toward the develop-
ment of improved or more effective comprehensive health planning
throughout the Nation. For the purposes of carrying out this
subsection, there are hereby authorized to be appropriated $1,500,-
000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, $2,500,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $5,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1969, $7,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June
30, 1970, $8,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971,
$10,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and $12,-
000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973.
Grants for comprehensive public health services; authorization of appropria-
tions; State plans; allotments; payments to States; Federal share;
allocation of funds
(d) (1) There are authorized to be appropriated $70,000,000
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $90,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1969, $100,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1970, $130,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1971, $145,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and
$165,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, to enable
the Secretary to make grants to State health or mental health
authorities to assist the States in establishing and maintaining
adequate public health services, including the training of personnel
for State and local health work. The sums so appropriated shall be
used for making payments to States which have submitted, and
had approved by the Secretary, State plans for provision of public
health services, except that, for any fiscal year ending after June
30, 1968, such portion of such sums as the Secretary may deter-
mine, but not exceeding 1 per centum thereof, shall be available
to the Secretary for evaluation (directly or by grants or con-
tracts) of the program authorized by this subsection and the
amount available for allotments hereunder shall be reduced ac-
cordingly.
(2) In order to be approved under this subsection, a State plan
for provision of public health services must—
(A) provide for administration or supervision of adminis-
tration by the State health authority or, with respect to
mental health services, the State mental health authority;
-------
936 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
(B) set forth the policies and procedures to be followed in
the expenditure of the funds paid under this subsection;
(C) contain or be supported by assurances satisfactory to
the Secretary that (i) the funds paid to the State under this
subsection will be used to make a significant contribution
toward providing and strengthening public health services
in the various political subdivisions in order to improve the
health of the people; (ii) such funds will be made available
to other public or nonprofit private agencies, institutions, and
organizations, in accordance with criteria which the Secretary
determines are designed to secure maximum participation
of local, regional, or metropolitan agencies and groups in
the provision of such services; (iii) such funds will be used
to supplement and, to the extent practical, to increase the
level of funds that would otherwise be made available for the
purposes for which the Federal funds are provided and not
to supplant such non-Federal funds; and (iv) the plan is
compatible with the total health program of the State;
(D) provide for the furnishing of public health services
under the State plan in accordance with such plans as have
been developed pursuant to subsection (a) of this section;
(E) provide that public health services furnished under
the plan will be in accordance with standards prescribed by
regulations, including standards as to the scope and quality
of such services;
(F) provide such methods of administration (including
methods relating to the establishment and maintenance of
personnel standards on a merit basis, except that the Secre-
tary shall exercise no authority with respect to the selection,
tenure of office, and compensation of any individual employed
in accordance with such methods) as are found by the Secre-
tary to be necessary for the proper and efficient operation of
the plan;
(G) provide that the State health authority or, with re-
spect to mental health services, the State mental health au-
thority, will from time to time, but not less often than
annually, review and evaluate its State plan approved under
this subsection and submit to the Secretary appropriate modi-
fications thereof;
(H) provide that the State health authority or, with re-
spect to mental health services, the State mental health au-
thority, will make such reports, in such form and containing
such information, as the Secretary may from time to time
reasonably require, and will keep such records and afford
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 937
such access thereto as the Secretary finds necessary to assure
the correctness and verification of such reports;
(I) provide for such fiscal control and fund accounting
procedures as may be necessary to assure the proper disburse-
ment of and accounting for funds paid to the State under this
subsection;
(J) contain such additional information and assurances
as the Secretary may find necessary to carry out the purposes
of this subsection;
(K) provide for services for the prevention and treatment
of drug abuse and drug dependence, commensurate with the
extent of the problem; and
(L) provide for services for the prevention and treatment
of alcohol abuse and alcoholism, commensurate with the ex-
tent of the problem.
(3) From the sums appropriated to carry out the provisions of
this subsection the several States shall be entitled for each fiscal
year to allotments determined, in accordance with regulations, on
the basis of the population and financial need of the respective
States, except that no State's allotment shall be less for any year
than the total amounts allotted to such State under formula grants
for cancer control, plus other allotments under this section, for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1967.
(4) (A) From each State's allotment under this subsection for
a fiscal year, the State shall be paid the Federal share of the ex-
penditures incurred during such year under its State plan ap-
proved under this subsection. Such payments shall be made from
time to time in advance on the basis of estimates by the Secretary
of the sums the State will expend on the basis of estimates by
the Secretary of the sums the State will expend under the State
plan, except that such adjustments as may be necessary shall be
made on account of previously made underpayments or overpay-
ments under this subsection.
(B) For the purpose of determining the Federal share for any
State, expenditures by nonprofit private agencies, organizations,
and groups shall, subject to such limitations and conditions as may
be prescribed by regulations, be regarded as expenditures by such
State or a political subdivision thereof.
(5) The "Federal share" for any State for purposes of this
subsection shall be 100 per centum less that percentage which
bears the same ratio to 50 per centum as the per capita income of
such State bears to the per capita income of the United States;
except that in no case shall such percentage be less than 331/3
per centum or more than 66% per centum, and except that the
-------
938 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
Federal share for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam,
American Samoa, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, and
the Virgin Islands shall be 662/a per centum.
(6) The Federal shares shall be determined by the Secretary
between July 1 and September 1 of each year, on the basis of the
average per capita incomes of each of the States and of the United
States for the most recent year for which satisfactory data are
available from the Department of Commerce, and such determina-
tion shall be conclusive for the fiscal year beginning on next July
1. The populations of the several States shall be determined on the
basis of the latest figures for the population of the several States
available from the Department of Commerce.
(7) At least 15 per centum of a State's allotment under this
subsection shall be available only to the State mental health
authority for the provision under the State plan of mental health
services. Effective with respect to allotments under this subsec-
tion for fiscal years ending after June 30, 1968, at least 70 per
centum of such amount reserved for mental health services and
at least 70 per centum of the remainder of a State's allotment
under this subsection shall be available only for the provision
under the State plan of services in communities of the State.
Project grants for health services and related training; authorization of
appropriations; review of application by appropriate areawide health
planning agency
(e) There are authorized to be appropriated $90,000,000 for
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, $95,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1969, $80,000,000 for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1970, $109,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1971, $135,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and
$157,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, for grants
to any public or nonprofit private agency, institution, or organiza-
tion to cover part of the cost (including equity requirements and
amortization of loans on facilities acquired from the Office of
Economic Opportunity or construction in connection with any
program or project transferred from the Office of Economic
Opportunity) of (1) providing services (including related train-
ing) to meet health needs of limited geographic scope or of
specialized regional or national significance, or (2) developing
and supporting for an initial period new programs of health
services (including related training). Any grant made under this
subsection may be made only if the application for such grant
has been referred for review and comment to the appropriate
area-wide health planning agency or agencies (or, if there is no
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 939
such agency in the area, then to such other public or nonprofit
private agency or organization (if any) which performs similar
functions) and only if the services assisted under such grant will
be provided in accordance with such plans as have been developed
pursuant to subsection (a) of this section.
Repeal
Subsec. (f) of this section repealed (less applicability
to commissioned officers of the Public Health Service)
by Pub.L. 91-648, Title IV, §§ 403, 404, Jan. 5, 1971, 84
Stat. 1925, effective sixty days after Jan. 5, 1971.
Interchange of personnel with States
(f) (1) For the purposes of this subsection, the term "State"
means a State or a political subdivision of a State, or any agency
of either of the foregoing engaged in any activities related to
health or designated or established pursuant to subparagraph (A)
of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of this section; the term
"Secretary" means (except when used in paragraph (3) (D)
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare; and the term
"Department" means the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare.
(2) The Secretary is authorized, through agreements or other-
wise, to arrange for assignment of officers and employees of
States to the Department and assignment to States of officers
and employees in the Department engaged in work related to
health, for work which the Secretary determines will aid the
Department in more effective discharge of its responsibilities in
the field of health as authorized by law, including cooperation
with States and the provision of technical or other assistance.
The period of assignment of any officer or employee under an
arrangement shall not exceed two years.
(3) (A) Officers and employees in the Department assigned to
any State pursuant to this subsection shall be considered, during
such assignment, to be (i) on detail to a regular work assignment
in the Department, or (ii) on leave without pay from their posi-
tions in the Department.
(B) Persons considered to be so detailed shall remain as officers
or employees, as the case may be, in the Department for all
purposes, except that the supervision of their duties during the
period of detail may be governed by agreement between the
Department and the State involved.
(C) In the case of persons so assigned and on leave without
Pay—
-------
940 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
(i) if the rate of compensation (including allowances) for
their employment by the State is less than the rate of com-
pensation (including allowances) they would be receiving
had they continued in their regular assignment in the Depart-
ment, they may receive supplemental salary payments from
the Department in the amount considered by the Secretary
to be justified, but not at a rate in excess of the difference
between the State rate and the Department rate; and
(ii) they may be granted annual leave and sick leave to
the extent authorized by law, but only in circumstances con-
sidered by the Secretary to justify approval of such leave.
Such officers and employees on leave without pay shall, notwith-
standing any other provision of law, be entitled—
(iii) to continuation of their insurance under the Federal
Employees' Group Life Insurance Act of 1954, and coverage
under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959,
so long as the Department continues to collect the employee's
contribution from the officer or employee involved and to
transmit for timely deposit into the funds created under such
Acts the amount of the employee's contributions and the
Government's contribution from appropriations of the De-
partment; and
(iv) (I) in the case of commissioned officers of the Service,
to have their service during their assignment treated as
provided in section 215 (d) of this title for such officers on
leave without pay, or (II) in the case of other officers and
employees in the Department, to credit the period of their
assignment under the arrangement under this subsection
toward periodic or longevity step increases and for retention
and leave accrual purposes, and, upon payment into the civil
service retirement and disability fund of the percentage of
their State salary, and of their supplemental salary payments,
if any, which would have been deducted from a like Federal
salary for the period of such assignment and payment by the
Secretary into such fund of the amount which would have
been payable by him during the period of such assignment
with respect to a like Federal salary, to treat (notwithstand-
ing the provisions of the Independent Offices Appropriation
Act, 1959, under the head "Civil Service Retirement and
Disability Fund") their service during such period, as service
within the meaning of the Civil Service Retirement Act;
except that no officer or employee or his beneficiary may receive
any benefits under the Civil Service Retirement Act, the Federal
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 941
Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959, or the Federal Employees'
Group Life Insurance Act of 1954, based on service during an
assignment hereunder for which the officer or employee or (if he
dies without making such election) his beneficiary elects to receive
benefits, under any State retirement or insurance law or program,
which the Civil Service Commission determines to be similar.
The Department shall deposit currently in the funds created under
the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Act of 1954, the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 1959, and the civil
service retirement and disability fund, respectively, the amount
of the Government's contribution under these Acts on account of
service with respect to which employee contributions are collected
as provided in subparagraph (iii) and the amount of the Govern-
ment's contribution under the Civil Service Retirement Act on
account of service with respect to which payments (of the amount
which would have been deducted under that Act) referred to in
subparagraph (iv) are made to such civil service retirement and
disability fund.
(D) Any such officer or employee on leave without pay (other
than a commissioned officer of the Service) who suffers disability
or death as a result of personal injury sustained while in the
performance of his duty during an assignment hereunder, shall
be treated, for the purposes of the Federal Employees' Compensa-
tion Act, as though he were an employee, as defined in such Act,
who had sustained such injury in the performance of duty. When
such person (or his dependents, in case of death) entitled by
reason of injury or death to benefits under that Act is also entitled
to benefits from a State for the same injury or death, he (or his
dependents in case of death) shall elect which benefits he will
receive. Such election shall be made within one year after the
injury or death, or such further time as the Secretary of Labor
may for good cause allow, and when made shall be irrevocable
unless otherwise provided by law.
(4) Assignment of any officer or employee in the Department
to a State under this subsection may be made with or without
reimbursement by the State for the compensation (or supple-
mentary compensation), travel and transportation expenses (to
or from the place of assignment), and allowances, or any part
thereof, of such officer or employee during the period of assign-
ment, and any such reimbursement shall be credited to the appro-
priation utilized for paying such compensation, travel or trans-
portation expenses, or allowances.
(5) Appropriations to the Department shall be available, in
accordance with the standardized Government travel regulations
-------
942 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
or, with respect to commissioned officers of the Service, the joint
travel regulations, for the expenses of travel of officers and
employees assigned to States under an arrangement under this
subsection on either a detail or leave-without-pay basis and, in
accordance with applicable law, orders, and regulations, for
expenses of transportation of their immediate families and ex-
penses of transportation of their household goods and personal
effects, in connection with the travel of such officers and employees
to the location of their posts of assignment and their return to
their official stations.
(6) Officers and employees of States who are assigned to the
Department under an arrangement under this subsection may
(A) be given appointments in the Department covering the
periods of such assignments, or (B) be considered to be on detail
to the Department. Appointments of persons so assigned may be
made without regard to the civil service laws. Persons so appointed
in the Department shall be paid at rates of compensation deter-
mined in accordance with the Classification Act of 1949, and
shall not be considered to be officers or employees of the Depart-
ment for the purposes of (A) the Civil Service Retirement Act,
(B) the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance Act of 1954,
or (C) unless their appointments result in the loss of coverage
in a group health benefits plan whose premium has been paid in
whole or in part by a State contribution, the Federal Employees
Health Benefits Act of 1959. State officers and employees who are
assigned to the Department without appointment shall not be
considered to be officers or employees of the Department, except
as provided in subsection (7), nor shall they be paid a salary or
wage by the Department during the period of their assignment.
The supervision of the duties of such persons during the assign-
ment may be governed by agreement between the Secretary and
the State involved.
(7) (A) Any State officer or employee who is assigned to the
Department without appointment shall nevertheless be subject
to the provisions of sections 203, 205, 207, 208, and 209 of Title 18.
(B) Any State officer or employee who is given an appointment
while assigned to the Department, or who is assigned to the
Department without appointment, under an arrangement under
this subsection, and who suffers disability or death as a result
of personal injury sustained while in the performance of his duty
during such assignment shall be treated, for the purpose of the
Federal Employees' Compensation Act, as though he were an
employee, as defined in such Act, who had sustained such injury
in the performance of duty. When such person (or his dependents,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 943
in case of death) entitled by reason of injury or death to benefits
under that Act is also entitled to benefits from a State for the
same injury or death, he (or his dependents, in case of death)
shall elect which benefits he will receive. Such election shall be
made within one year after the injury or death, or such further
time as the Secretary of Labor may for good cause allow, and
when made shall be irrevocable unless otherwise provided by law.
(8) The appropriations to the Department shall be available,
in accordance with the standardized Government travel regula-
tions, during the period of assignment and in the case of travel
to and from their places of assignment or appointment, for the
payment of expenses of travel of persons assigned to, or given
appointments by, the Department under an arrangement under
this subsection.
(9) All arrangements under this subsection for assignment of
officers or employees in the Department to States or for assign-
ment of officers or employees of States to the Department shall
be made in accordance with regulations of the Secretary.
Consultation with State authorities; failure to comply with statute or rules
and regulations; definitions
(g) (1) All regulations and amendments thereto with respect
to grants to States under subsection (a) of this section shall be
made after consultation with a conference of the State health
planning agencies designated or established pursuant to subpara-
graph (A) of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of this section.
All regulations and amendments thereto with respect to grants to
States under subsection (d) of this section shall be made after
consultation with a conference of State health authorities and, in
the case of regulations and amendments which relate to or in any
way affect grants for services or other activities in the field of
mental health, the State mental health authorities. Insofar as
practicable, the Secretary shall obtain the agreement, prior to the
issuance of such regulations or amendments, of the State authori-
ties or agencies with whom such consultation is required.
(2) The Secretary, at the request of any recipient of a grant
under this section, may reduce the payments to such recipient by
the fair market value of any equipment or supplies furnished to
such recipient and by the amount of the pay, allowances, traveling
expenses, and any other costs in connection with the detail of an
officer or employee to the recipient when such furnishing or such
detail, as the case may be, is for the convenience of and at the
request of such recipient and for the purpose of carrying out the
State plan or the project with respect to which the grant under
-------
944 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
this section is made. The amount by which such payments are so
reduced shall be available for payment of such costs (including the
costs of such equipment and supplies) by the Secretary, but shall,
for purposes of determining the Federal share under subsection
(a) or (d) of this section, be deemed to have been paid to the
State.
(3) Whenever the Secretary, after reasonable notice and oppor-
tunity for hearing to the health authority or, where appropriate,
the mental health authority of a State or a State health planning
agency designated or established pursuant to subparagraph (A)
of paragraph (2) of subsection (a) of this section, finds that, with
respect to money paid to the State out of appropriations under
subsection (a) or (d) of this section, there is a failure to comply
substantially with either—
(A) the applicable provisions of this section;
(B) the State plan submitted under such subsection; or
(C) applicable regulations under this section;
the Secretary shall notify such State health authority, mental
health authority, or health planning agency, as the case may be,
that further payments will not be made to the State from appro-
priations under such subsection (or in his discretion that further
payments will not be made to the State from such appropriations
for activities in which there is such failure), until he is satisfied
that there will no longer be such failure. Until he is so satisfied,
the Secretary shall make no payment to such State from appro-
priations under such subsection, or shall limit payment to activities
in which there is no such failure.
(4) For the purposes of this section—
(A) The term "nonprofit" as applied to any private agency,
institution, or organization means one which is a corporation
or association, or is owned and operated by one or more
corporations or associations, no part of the net earnings of
which inures, or may lawfully inure, to the benefit of any
private shareholder or individual; and
(B) The term "State" includes the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Trust of Territory
of the Pacific Islands, the Virgin Islands, and the District of
Columbia and the term "United States" means the fifty States
and the District of Columbia.
July 1, 1944, c. 373, Title III, § 314, 58 Stat. 693; July 3, 1946,
c. 538, § 9, 60 Stat. 424; June 16, 1948, c. 481, § 5, 62 Stat. 468;
1953 Reorg. Plan No. 1, §§ 5, 8, eff. Apr. 11, 1953, 18 P.R. 2053,
67 Stat. 631; Aug. 1, 1956, c. 852, § 18, 70 Stat. 910; July 22, 1958,
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 945
Pub.L. 85-544, § 1, 72 Stat. 400; Oct. 5, 1961, Pub.L. 87-395,
§ 2(a)-(d), 75 Stat. 824; Sept. 25, 1962, Pub.L. 87-688, § 4(a)-
(1), 76 Stat. 587; Aug. 5, 1965, Pub.L. 89-109, § 4, 79 Stat. 436;
Nov. 3, 1966. Pub.L. 89-749, § 3, 80 Stat. 1181; Dec. 5, 1967,
Pub.L. 90-174, §§ 2(a)-(f), 3(b) (2), 8(a), (b), 12 (d), 81 Stat.
533-535, 540, 541; June 30, 1970, Pub.L. 91-296, Title I, § 111 (b),
Title IV, § 401 (b) (1) (C), (D), 84 Stat. 340, 352; Oct. 27, 1970,
Pub.L. 91-513, Title I, § 3(b), 84 Stat. 1241; Oct. 30, 1970, Pub.L.
91-515, Title II, §§ 220, 230, 240, 250, 260(a), (b), (c) (1), 282,
84 Stat. 1304-1306, 1308; and amended Dec. 31, 1970, Pub.L.
91-616, Title III, § 331, 84 Stat. 1853.
§ 247. Publication of health educational information
From time to time the Secretary shall issue information related
to public health, in the form of publications or otherwise, for the
use of the public, and shall publish weekly reports of health con-
ditions in the United States and other countries and other perti-
nent health information for the use of persons and institutions
engaged in work related to the functions of the Service.
July 1, 1944, c. 373, Title III, § 315, 58 Stat. 695, amended Oct. 30,
1970, Pub.L. 91-515, Title II, § 282, 84 Stat. 1308.
-------
946 LEGAL COMPILATION—RADIATION
1.3 PUBLIC CONTRACTS, ADVERTISEMENTS FOR
PROPOSALS FOR PURCHASES AND CONTRACTS
FOR SUPPLIES OR SERVICES FOR GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENTS; APPLICATION TO GOVERNMENT
SALES AND CONTRACTS TO SELL AND TO
GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS, AS AMENDED, 41
U.S.C. § 5 (1958).
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §242c(e)]
41 § 5.
Unless otherwise provided in the appropriation concerned or
other law, purchases and contracts for supplies or services for the
Government may be made or entered into only after advertising a
sufficient time previously for proposals, except (1) when the
amount involved in any one case does not exceed $2,500, (2) when
the public exigencies require the immediate delivery of the articles
or performance of the service, (3) when only one source of supply
is available and the Government purchasing or contracting officer
shall so certify, or (4) when the services are required to be per-
formed by the contractor in person and are (A) of a technical
and professional nature or (B) under Government supervision and
paid for on a time basis. Except (1) as authorized by section 1638
of Appendix to Title 50, (2) when otherwise authorized by law,
or (3) when the reasonable value involved in any one case does
not exceed $500, sales and contracts of sale by the Government
shall be governed by the requirements of this section for adver-
tising.
In the case of wholly owned Government corporations, this sec-
tion shall apply to their administrative transactions only. R.S.
§ 3709; Aug. 2, 1946, c. 744, § 9(a), (c), 60 Stat. 809; June 30,
1949, c. 288, Title VI, § 602 (f), formerly Title V, § 502 (e), 63
Stat. 400, renumbered Sept. 5, 1950, c. 849, §§ 6(a), (b), 8(c), 64
Stat. 583; Aug. 28, 1958, Pub.L. 85-800, § 7, 72 Stat. 967.
-------
STATUTES AND LEGISLATIVE HISTORY 947
1.4 RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT, CONTRACTS,
AS AMENDED, 10 U.S.C. §§ 2353, 2354 (1956)
[Referred to in 42 U.S.C. §§241(h)]
§ 2353. Contracts: acquisition, construction, or furnishing of
test facilities and equipment
(a) A contract of a military department for research or devel-
opment, or both, may provide for the acquisition or construction
by, or furnishing to, the contractor, of research, developmental,
or test facilities and equipment that the Secretary of the military
department concerned determines to be necessary for the per-
formance of the contract. The facilities and equipment, and spe-
cialized housing for them, may be acquired or constructed at the
expense of the United States, and may be lent or leased to the
contractor with or without reimbursement, or may be sold to him
at fair value. This subsection does not authorize new construction
or improvements having general utility.
(b) Facilities that would not be readily removable or separable
without unreasonable expense or unreasonable loss of value may
not be installed or constructed under this section on property not
owned by the United States, unless the contract contains—
(1) a provision for reimbursing the United States for the
fair value of the facilities at the completion or termination
of the contract or within a reasonable time thereafter;
(2) an option in the United States to acquire the under-
lying land; or
(3) an alternative provision that the Secretary concerned
considers to be adequate to protect the interests of the United
States in the facilities.
(c) Proceeds of sales or reimbursements under this section
shall be paid into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts, except
to the extent otherwise authorized by law with respect to property
acquired by the contractor. Aug. 10, 1956, c. 1041, 70A Stat. 134.
§ 2354. Contracts: indemnification provisions
(a) With the approval of the Secretary of the military depart-
ment concerned, any contract of a military department for
research or development, or both, may provide that the United
States will indemnify the contractor against either or both of the
following, but only to the extent that they arise out of the direct
performance of the contract and to the extent not compensated by
insurance or otherwise:
(1) Claims (including reasonable expenses of litigation or
settlement) by third persons, including employees of the
contractor, for death, bodily injury, or loss of or damage to
-------
948 LEGAL C . ^ .
property, from a risk that the contract defines as unusually
hazardous.
(2) Loss of or damage to property of the contractor from
a risk that the contract defines as unusually hazardous.
(b) A contract, made under subsection (a), that provides for
indemnification must also provide for—
(1) notice to the United States of any claim or suit against
the contractor for the death, bodily injury, or loss of or
damage to property; and
(2) control of or assistance in the defense by the United
States, at its election, of that suit or claim.
(c) No payment may be made under subsection (a) unless the
Secretary of the department concerned, or an officer or official of
his department designated by him, certifies that the amount is
just and reasonable.
(d) Upon approval by the Secretary concerned, payments under
subsection (a) may be made from—
(1) funds obligated for the performance of the contract
concerned;
(2) funds available for research or development, or both,
and not otherwise obligated; or
(3) funds appropriated for those payments. Aug. 10, 1956,
c. 1041, 70A Stat. 134.
Uc; Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, UcYnry
230 South Doarbcrn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
* U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE • 1973 O - 469-517 (VO1 . II)
-------
-------
------- |