Representative HOLIFIELD. Dr. Morgan, we will hear from you and then we will adjourn.

Dr. MORGAN. On this word "discernible" radiation damage, I would like to point out further that there are several reasons why radiation damage has not been discovered in occupational workers. One is that the average exposure in most of these large atomic energy plants is of the order of 5 or 6 percent of the permissible level. Another reason is that it requires perhaps 15 to 20 years for some types of damage to show up. However, on the other side of the picture we have many people in our country that are drinking water that contains radium that is several times the permissible level for radium and presumably the hazard there would be similar to that from strontium at the permissible level. Here we have groups that have been subjected to this exposure in their own drinking water for many years, perhaps generations. So, when you speak of discernible, you are also speaking of our ability to detect or the epidemiological efficiency in determining these hazards. We have not determined any damage from drinking this water.

Representative HOLIFIELD. This does not necessarily mean there was no damage. It just means that we have no statistical study of the cases of these people.

Dr. MORGAN. It means that the studies have not been pursued adequately to detect radiation damage.

Representative HOLIFIELD. When you use that illustration and let it stand without explaining that you do not know what the damage was, do you not leave a false impression on the record?

Dr. MORGAN. I think so; yes.

Representative HOSMER. There have been some studies made; have there not?

Dr. MORGAN. Studies of small groups, but not on an epidemiological basis where you take into account thousands of people to get a figure of statistical significance.

Representative HOSMER. Such studies have not been made with respect to the birth and death rate. That would not be the same.

Dr. WOLMAN. No. They are gross rather than specific, and they are not on large numbers. It is, I think, from my point of view unwise.

Representative HOSMER. There are whole populations involved.

Dr. WOLMAN. Not of the type that would be particularly significant one way or another. It is, I believe, unfortunate to keep referring to that body of population exposed to radioactive drinking water without that evidence ever having been completely supported.

Mr. RAMEY. The General Advisory Committee did that last year in reference to our fallout hearings.

Dr. WOLMAN. Yes. I am still looking for the epidemiological data on radioactive drinking water and I do not know where it is to that

extent.

Dr. MORGAN. I subscribe to that completely.

People often refer to the lack of radiation damage from thorium and monazite sands, but when our NCRP committee asked for the evidence we received no statistical evidence that there are not increased hazards in working and living with this thorium.

Representative HOLIFIELD. I think on that note, the chairman will announce our topic tomorrow morning will be Activities of Federal, State, and Private Agencies in Radiation Protection and Relationship Among Agencies and Groups Concerned With Radiation Standards. Incidentally, we will be back in the old Supreme Court, room P-63, in the Capitol Building.

(Supplementary material submitted by Mr. Taylor follows:) (Further comments submitted by Mr. Taylor:)

(I)

In the roundtable discussion at the hearings on May 24, there was some discussion centering about the scope and methods of activity of the NCRP. It was brought out that the NCRP intends to limit its activities more sharply to considerations of a scientific and technical nature and, furthermore, that it does not intend to include in its membership representatives of nontechnical groups such as industry, labor, social "sciences."

The point was also brought out that the NCRP has not considered the problem of fallout as a special problem in itself. This led to the introduction of the idea of the NCRP operating in an “ivory tower."

It was my interpretation that the remarks embodying this term were made in a light vein-my own remarks certainly were. However, in cold print, these remarks might be regarded more seriously by some readers. Since the expression "working in an ivory tower" may imply working in isolation, or apart from practical considerations, I should like to assure the Joint Committee that as far as the NCRP is concerned nothing could be further from the truth. The NCRP intends to continue to deal objectively with problems in the general field of radiation protection and measurements and in the course of its studies will continue to consult with such outside groups or individuals as it may deem necessary.

It will deal with whatever problems it is considered appropriate to its overall objectives. It will probably continue to avoid dealing with problems of fallout, industry standards, etc., not because of working in an ivory tower atmosphere, but because the committee feels that these problems are more appropriately dealt with by other groups, (National Academy of Science, United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, American Standards Association; respectfully).

On the other hand, it is not unreasonable to expect that the NCRP, by its normal considerations, will continue to contribute to the basic understanding of these specific problems, along with many others. As far as the NCRP is concerned, fallout is just one of the many sources of radiation to which the population may be exposed. To take one component of fallout as an example, the committee has attempted to evaluate the hazards of strontium 90 regardless of whether it occurs in fallout, a wristwatch, a nuclear battery, or a reactor. Once the strontium is in the body, the body is unaware of its source.

I trust that this brief explanation will serve to remove any apprehension that the NCRP expects or intends to remove itself from the atmosphere of scientific and technical reality that has always governed its activities.

t

(II)

At the roundtable discussion on May 24, and during the testimony given by Dr. Failla on May 26, questions were asked about the modus operandi for the production of an NCRP or ICRP réport. As there was not an opportunity to fully supply this information at the time, I shall do so herein.

1. NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON RADIATION PROTECTION AND MEASUREMENTS (NCRP) A particular study resulting in a report or recommendation by the National Committee on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) may be originated in any of a variety of ways, (a) by any individual member calling a particular need to the attention of the executive committee; (b) a request or suggestion from someone outside of the committee; and, (c) by the executive committee itself.

This latter procedure is the most common means. In any case, any request or suggestion is reviewed by the executive committee and a decision must be reached by a three-quarters vote. The decision is then transmitted to the main committee and again requires a three-quarters vote for approval.

If the action requires the establishment of a special committee, the executive committee chooses an appropriate chairman, either from amongst the present members of the NCRP or by inviting someone from the outside. The most suitable person that the committee can obtain, regardless of committee membership, is chosen for this task. The action of approving the chairman, again must be approved by a three-quarters vote of the main committee.

The new subcommittee chairman is then asked to make recommendations as to subcommittee membership, drawing as much as possible upon existing members within the NCRP but going outside of the NCRP whenever it is felt that higher specialized competence can be obtained. Final approval of the subcommittee membership is made by the executive committee.

The subcommittee is given appropriate instructions by the executive committee and, in turn, reports back to the executive committee as to its proposed plan of action and general scope of activity. If there is any question about this the matter is submitted to the main committee for discussion and approval.

The subcommittee meets as frequently as is deemed necessary, and, when it has, itself, approved a report by at least a three-quarters vote, the matter is then submitted to the executive committee which, in turn, submits it to the main committee. All reports released through this process require a threequarters vote of approval by the main committee.

Written ballots on the report are retained for record purposes. Upon acceptance by the main committee the report is submitted through National Bureau of Standards editorial channels and is published as a NBS Handbook.

There are frequent occasions when the committee feels that it is desirable to obtain additional outside views or comments on a report before release for publication. Copies are sent to outside readers whenever deemed necessary. As an example, Handbook 42, "Safe Handling of Radioactive Isotopes," was preprinted and about 300 copies widely circulated over the country. Final release was not made until over a year later, when there had been an opportunity to digest the outside comments.

Handbook 61, "Regulation of Radiation Exposure by Legislative Means," was preprinted to the extent of about 250 copies. These were distributed to many State health and labor departments; to numerous attorneys; officials of Federal agencies, etc.; and again the final report was not released until comments received from these individuals were digested. A recent report on the "Measurements of Absorbed Dose of Neutrons and of Mixtures of Neutrons and y-Rays," was circulated to two other subcommittees of the NCRP, in addition to the membership of the committee that wrote it. It was also sent to selected experts in the field located at various laboratories throughout the country.

The exact procedure varies, as can be seen, depending upon the nature of the report. However, there are very few reports prepared by the NCRP that do not receive this specialized review to some degree or other.

On matters of a relatively minor nature the executive committee itself will consider the problem and will prepare the necessary recommendations. These will go through the same procedure as outlined above before release.

The amount of time spent on reports varies greatly between reports. The studies by the subcommittee on maximum permissible concentration of radioactive materials in air and water, under the chairmanship of Dr. K. Z. Morgan, were begun in 1946 and have been worked on continuously ever since that time. This particular subcommittee meets two or three times a year and in addition works through an enormous amount of correspondence. It is estimated that between the production of the two reports of this committee, issued in 1953 and 1959, some 50 man-years have been expended.

The degree of effort on any particular report, of course, depends upon the report itself but it is doubtful whether many of the reports issued thus far by the NCRP involve less than 1 or 2 man-years of effort. In general, it is not felt that any study has involved situations so critical as to require a crash effort. The most effective method of working on the reports appears to be to hold such meetings as necessary, subdivide the work into task groups that work actively between meetings, and eventually pull all of the material together in a single report.

II. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION

The procedures for the ICRP are somewhat similar to those described above for the NCRP, although because of distances between workers located in different countries, the work necessarily moves somewhat more slowly.

ICRP projects may be originated by individual members of the Commission or by the Commission itself. In any case, they are subject to review by the

Commission before activation. Committee chairmen may be selected from among the Commission membership or by special invitation. The objective is to find the best suited person for the particular task and this person is chosen without regard to nationality.

ICRP committees work separately and then bring their reports to the Commission for review and approval. Commission meetings are held at least once every 3 years but during the past several years they have met one or two times per year in addition. The length of the meetings range from 1 to 2 weeks.

The work of the Commission, because of its international nature, has certain complicating as well as simplifying factors. A complication is in the matter of communications because of distances involved. Another complication results from the fact that various countries have different approaches to the same problem. While basically these are rarely very different nevertheless they frequently require reaching acceptable compromises.

To some extent the work of the Commission is simplified by the fact that various countries have such groups as the NCRP in this country, the British Medical Research Council; the German Standardization and Protection Organizations, etc. These national groups tend to develop detailed concepts and recommendations which frequently save the ICRP from having to start from the very beginning. For example, in the 1956 report the work of the Committee on Permissible Dose for Internal Radiation and the Committee on X-ray Protection were able to follow very closely the reports from the corresponding committees of the NCRP. In fact for the past 4 years the NCRP and the ICRP Committees on Internal Dose have worked jointly on the development of information on maximum permissible concentrations. This was of great value to both groups and resulted in a large saving of manpower. This arrangement was completely unofficial as the ICRP does not have official relationships with protection committees in individual countries. The whole operation was nevertheless extremely effective.

Depending upon circumstances, reports of the ICRP before final publication are submitted to a special editorial board. This is to insure the avoidance of conflicting statements that might occur in reports of the individual groups. Upon completion of a report the material is published by a private publishing house. It is also made available through the World Health Organization and other groups for translation into various languages.

Occasionally the ICRP undertakes special studies by request from outside agencies. It has completed one such study which was supported to a substantial extent by the U.N. Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiations. It is presently engaged in a second such study. These two programs are carried out jointly with the International Commission on Radiological Units and Measurements.

III. THE DISPOSITION OF THE NCRP AD HOC COMMITTEE ON SOMATIC DOSE FOR THE POPULATION*

The subject report was completed by the ad hoc committee and submitted to the NCRP in May 1959. In accordance with NCRP procedures no action could be taken on this report until after it had been fully reviewed by the committee. Such a review took place during the several months following its submission. At the meeting of the executive committee in November 1959 the report was accepted. However, there were a variety of comments and questions raised with regard to some details of the report even though there was general approval of the basic approach and concepts.

The report, if officially adopted and promulgated by the NCRP, would necessitate substantial changes in many of the numerical recommendations made by the NCRP. It was felt that considerable further study would be required before these could receive final approval. Therefore, the report was transmitted to NCRP I, "Permissible Dose From Ionizing Radiation. This committee will consider the recommendations of the ad hoc report, together with the overall problem, and in due course will make such issuance as it feels is appropriate.

(Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, May 25, 1960.)

* See testimony of Dr. James Crow (p. 220) and Dr. G. Failla (p. 177).

RADIATION PROTECTION CRITERIA AND
STANDARDS: THEIR BASIS AND USE

WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 1960

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES, SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON RADIATION, JOINT COMMITTEE ON ATOMIC ENERGY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room P-63, the Capitol, Hon. Chet Holifield (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Holifield, Price, Aspinall, Hosmer, and Bates; Senators Anderson and Aiken.

Also present: James T. Ramey, executive director; Carey Brewer and George F. Murphy, Jr., professional staff members; Hal Hollister, Richard T. Lunger, and James E. Turner, technical consultants, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.

Representative HOLIFIELD. The committee will be in order.

This morning the Special Radiation Subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy will resume its hearings on the basis and use of radiation protection criteria and standards.

We are pleased to have as our witnesses this morning the Honorable Arthur S. Flemming, Chairman of the Federal Radiation Council, and Mr. Elmer D. Staats, Deputy Director of the Bureau of the Budget.

Before we receive their testimony, I should like to observe that the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy has been very interested in activities of the executive branch in the general field of radiation protection standards. The Joint Committee was instrumental in providing a statutory basis last year for the Federal Radiation Council, which was originally created by Executive order, and we have followed its recent activities with considerable interest.

For the record, I may note that last fall we advised the Federal Radiation Council of our intention to conduct the present hearings, and the Council succeeded in issuing its first report and "Radiation Protection Guide" 1 week before the hearings began.

Also, soon after our fallout hearings were announced in the spring of 1959 the Atomic Energy Commission announced that the National Academy of Sciences had been asked to bring up to date its studies on the biological effects of atomic radiation. The National Academy study was released approximately 2 weeks before our hearings began. It may also be noted in the course of our hearings on fallout last year the AEC came up with a rather hastily prepared general advisory committee report.