development of at least two sets of criteria, those designed for radiation workers and those for nonradiation workers.

The protection criteria for radiation workers are primarily designed to prevent somatic damage to the individual. The permissible levels are so chosen as to carry a negligible probability of producing detectable injury to the individual exposed.

As far as can be determined today, results over the past three decades indicate that the occupational exposure levels have been adequate to meet this requirement. Since the fraction of our population engaged in radiation work is very small-perhaps a quarter of 1 percent the possible genetic injury to this group is not considered critical when blended in with the entire population. However small the genetic effect may be in this group itself, it has not been overlooked in setting the protection criteria.

The problem of exposure of the entire population is quite different. The average individual in the population is not likely to receive a radiation exposure of more than a small fraction of that of the individual worker for whom no damage is detectable.

On the other hand, the genetic effects of radiation depend upon the total population exposure, and therefore a very low average dose distributed over the whole population could be of very real significance.

A public relationship difficulty in the area of radiation protection centers about how we deal with the numbers of people that are, or are potentially, injured. In the field of disease it is customary to refer to disease incidence in terms of number per 100,000. For example, in leukemia the normal mortality rate is 7 per 100,000; for suicide, 10; for malignant neoplasms, 148; and for heart disease, 360.

On this basis, additional deaths or injury from radiation could possibly be expressed as some number per 100,000, and statistically the problem falls into perspective with all of the other causes of mortality.

On the other hand, if one deals with an absolute number of cases of radiation injury or death-assuming that these are known-the figures may appear to look very terrible indeed, even though they may number only in the hundreds.

It is my feeling that we should caution ourselves against the acceptance of a position in the radiation protection field that is dominated more by sentiment than by science. Instead we should develop a balanced judgment of the total problem and its relationship to all other risk problems. One can argue that leaning always in the direction of conservatism is an admission of the acceptance of such a position of sentiment.

I will turn briefly to item 2 in the outline, dealing with groups that are interested in the development of radiation protection criteria. Most of the background information with regard to such groups has been covered in the proceedings of the earlier hearings.

Aside from small individual national groups in various countries, the first concerted action in the field of radiation protection was undertaken by ICRP beginning in 1928 and has continued without interruption since then. The ICRP was a child of the International Congresses of Radiology and now the International Society of Radiology. It has no direct Government relationships.

ICRP's initial concern was for radiation workers associated with the medical profession, but the background of philosophy and information developed for that group has played an essential role in all subsequent recommendations.

More recent recc nmendations of ICRP have shown evidence of the exercise of judgment based on matters other than scientific in nature. The Commission has recognized the nonscientific aspects of the protection problem from the outset, but at the same time realized that no other group was filling the gap. As a matter of fact, I suspect that this group, while primarily scientific in nature, is about as well qualified as any other group for the making of subjective judgments.

The Internatioral Commission on Radiological Units and Measurements is not directly involved in radiation protection matters. However, it is the international body that establishes the basic quantities and units required for radiation measurement and without which quantitative radiation control would be impractical. The background of ICRU the same as that of ICRP and the two groups work jointly on many problems having a common denominator.

The National Committee on Radiation Protection and Measurements was established in this country in 1929, working in close parallel with, but independently of, ICRP. The development of its philosophy and recommendations closely parallel those of ICRP and ÎCRU.ˆ ÑCRP has also dealt with the total problem of radiation protection, including recommendations based on nonscientific findings. Its recommendations involving social and economic questions have been taken up largely by default, since up until the last year no other group has given these problems any consideration.

The anomalous position of the committee has been clearly recognized by the body itself, in its writings and by articles published by its various members. It is anticipated that, with the establishment of the Federal Radiation Council, NCRP may back out of some areas not of a strictly scientific nature, although I feel that as a group it is still well qualified to consider many of these problems.

The Federal Radiation Council was established by Executive order and congressional action in 1959 in an endeavor to provide a mechanism for balancing scientific factors against social, economic, and political factors, primarily for the purpose of developing an official Federal Government position. In its endeavors it has been receiving the active assistance of NCRP, as well as that of many individual scientists.

Many of the States are in the process of developing radiation control programs. Up to the present time they have, without exception, adopted the basic criteria as developed by NCRP. As far as I am aware no State has endeavored to develop an independent set of protection criteria.

The American Standards Association within the past 2 or 3 years has also entered into certain phases of the radiation protection problem. Thus far there has been close cooperation between ASA and NCRP with the result that they have relied upon the basic criteria developed by NCRP as the foundation for their development of standards of a technological nature.

Finally, I shall speak briefly upon the role of the unofficial or quasiofficial groups, such as NAS and NCRP. First, I should state very clearly my personal opinion that where an organization such as a

Federal Government has to take action, such as in the field of radiation protection, it is necessary that it have its own mechanism for dealing with the problem officially. This is essential also in order to bring into balance all of the possible individual agency viewpoints. Up to the present time, the Federal developments have utilized the recommendations of NCRP through individual agency actions. To say the least, this has resulted in a high degree of uniformity within the Government.

However, I believe that I can appreciate the need that is felt for having this problem closely within the Government's own hands for final action, even though they rely importantly upon nonofficial outside groups.

On the other hand, because of this country's way of life, I and many others feel that it is equally important that there be a strong organization outside of Government having a high degree of scientific independence in the radiation protection field. This is particularly important in those areas where the Federal Government may have a vested interest.

Throughout its existence the NCRP has enjoyed such professional independence, even though it has been to a substantial extent sponsored and operated by the National Bureau of Standards. The relationship between the NCRP and the NBS has always been a very fluid and informal one, and neither the NBS nor any other Government agency has ever exercised any kind of pressure on the committee.

In fact, even for those of us who have worked with the committee for over 30 years, it has been difficult to establish in our own minds whether the committee was, in fact, a Government committee or a private committee. On occasion, the NCRP has been criticized by individuals on the outside on the grounds that it was subject to too much influence by Government agencies. It has been equally criticized by individuals within the Government because it has not been subject to sufficient Government control. Therefore, one can suspect that its operation must have been a happy medium.

In any case those individuals and organizations who have supported the work of the committee over these many years agree on one point, the committee must continue and must enjoy continued scientific freedom whether it be operated by a Government agency or completely independently of any Government.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Taylor. Mr. Ramey. Mr. RAMEY. How does the NCRP go about its business? How is it organized?

Mr. TAYLOR. The NCRP as it is being operated at present is made up of representatives nominated by outside organizations having concern with the basic technical aspects of radiation protection. These would be scientific societies for the most part. The nominations are then voted upon by the committee for acceptance of these nominees as to their professional competence, as well as to insure proper balance of the overall competence of the committee.

Some members are selected at large in order to round out the committee's competence, and the committee appoints chairmen of subcommittees who are not necessarily members of the main committee. Mr. RAMEY. Does it have any social scientists?

Mr. TAYLOR. It does not.

Mr. RAMEY. Statisticians, for example?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes, there are a number of statisticians and mathematicians who can handled statistics.

Mr. RAMEY. But it does not have social scientists as a discipline? Mr. TAYLOR. No, it does not. Part of this is because the committee has in general been trying to avoid the social problems. In one area we have gone outside of the scientific circles; and that was in trying to prepare a model set of regulations. For this purpose, we brought in as consultants some four or five lawyers experienced in atomic energy matters.

Mr. RAMEY. We had one of those men testify last year, I think. Professor Frampton from the University of Illinois.

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes; he is one of the advisers. Do you want me to explain how it acts?

Mr. RAMEY. Yes, and particularly in relationship perhaps to the Federal Radiation Council. Has there been any relation between the NCRP and the Federal Radiation Council?

Mr. TAYLOR. The Federal Radiation Council, as you probably know, has been meeting very actively since early last fall. I have been invited to attend meetings of their working group and a number of the meetings of the Council itself. I suspect I have probably attended 90 percent of the meetings. This probably averages more than one a week as far as my own attendance is concerned. The committee has supplied the Radiation Council with material that it has had in process.

Mr. RAMEY. Does the NCRP have any problems arising out of the fact that the Federal Radiation Council is in existence? In other words, is the Federal Radiation Council taking over some of its functions, or does the NCRP have any other problems affecting its future?

Mr. TAYLOR. Yes. There are some rather definite problems that have arisen. In the first place, you heard me mention earlier that the organizational relationship with the NBS was rather ill defined and fluid. For over 2 years we have been trying to establish this relationship more clearly within the framework of Government requirements for committees. As of about a year ago, the committee decided that the clearest way to do this was to establish itself as a completely independent committee, including members of the Federal agencies as well as independent members. This was going forward satisfactorily until quite recently-in fact, until the establishment of the Federal Radiation Council. But it now appears according to some interpretations and I must say these have not yet been completely explored that since the Federal Radiation Council has the clear authority to make standards for the Federal Government, no Federal employee can belong to a private committee without involving himself in a conflict of interests situation. This makes for a very real difficulty, because, while the Federal employees on the committee only number about one-sixth of the total, they are nevertheless a very important one-sixth. So unless some way can be found for solving this, the committee may have an organizational difficulty.

On the other hand, if the committee is organized strictly as a Government committee in compliance with all of the usual requirements for such committees, then there is the chance that the committee will feel so completely restricted in its operations that it cannot be effective.

58454-60- -5

This is serious, because I think myself that a great deal of the effectiveness of the NCRP over the past 30 years has been its reputation for complete freedom and objectivity in all the matters it was considering.

Mr. RAMEY. In terms of numbers, how many people are involved in the activities of the NCRP?

Mr. TAYLOR. The total committee, including the subcommittee chairmen, runs approximately 150. Of these 150, 95 are not identified with Government. I don't remember the exact number, but about 30, I believe, of the remaining members are identified with some Federal agency or other, and I think some 20 or 25 are identified with prime contractors of the Atomic Energy Commission.

Mr. RAMEY. Of that 150 are they all actively working on radiation problems via the subcommittee route, or other route, so that you have a working organization of 150 people most of the time?

Mr. TAYLOR. That is correct. Actually the degree of activity for any one subcommittee varies from time to time. At the moment there are one or two subcommittees that are, you might say, in a quiescent state, but most of the committees are actively working and there are at the present time some six or eight reports of one kind or another in the process of preparation.

Representative HOLIFIELD. Thank you, Dr. Taylor. I think now you may remain seated, and we will call the members of the round table discussion to the witness table: Dr. Wolman, Dr. Selove, Mr. Parker, Dr. James Terrill, Dr. K. Z. Morgan, Dr. Charles R. Williams.

1

1

PANEL DISCUSSION: H. M. PARKER, HANFORD; DR. ABEL WOLMAN,1 JOHNS HOPKINS; DR. WALTER SELOVE,1 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA; LAURISTON TAYLOR, NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS; JAMES G. TERRILL, U.S. PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; DR. K. Z. MORGAN, OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY; DR. CHARLES R. WILLIAMS,' LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO. Representative HOLIFIELD. Gentlemen, you have heard the witnesses today. You can discuss, of course, anything that you feel should be discussed or any comments which any of you as individuals have upon

1 See biographical sketch on first page of his testimony.

2 Graduated from the University of Cincinnati in 1937 with a degree in civil engineering. He studied public health engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Graduate School from 1938 to 1941. Since 1941 he has been active in the Public Health Service. He participated in the first Bikini tests. During the period 1948-51 he studied radiological defense under the sponsorship of the Armed Forces Special Weapons project at the U.S. Navy Postgraduate School and the University of California. He has participated in and directed the Public Health Service activities related to the Nevada and Pacific test operations during 1953-57.

Mr. Terrill is active in radiological committees of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the American Public Health Association. He is a member of the National Committee on Radiation Protection and the Nuclear Standards Board of the American Standards Association.

Presently, he is Assistant Chief of the Division of Radiological Health, Public Health Service, with headquarters at 4th and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, D.C. Mr. Terrill lives at 5812 Phoenix Dr., Bethesda, Md.

3 Born in Kannapolis, N.C., in 1907. He received the A.B. degree in 1929 and the M.A. degree in 1930 from the University of North Carolina. He worked with the Westinghouse Electric Corp. in 1931 and received the Ph. D. in physics from Duke University in 1934. From 1934 to 1943 he was chairman of the physics department of Lenior Rhyne College, and during this period he did research work in cooperation with Duke University in the field of cosmic radiation. This led to a number of cosmic ray expeditions, among which were measurements in Linville Caverns, on the top of Mount Mitchell, and on Beech Mountain (all in North Carolina), and on Mount Evans near Denver, Colo.